At what point does an NPC become a DMPC?

[Crake]

So I've been reading threads about what makes a good vs bad DM, and many of the bad DM posts include the DM having a DMPC.

So what exactly differs between an NPC and a DMPC? For example, I introduced an NPC (a succubus-themed demon queen, though most of the other players didn't know that for a long while) who became attached to the one player who knew what she was and eventually corrupted him and transformed him into an incubus. She spent most of her time with the party (despite being able to teleport at will), and pretended to be a beguiler. As the campaign drew on, and I fleshed out the character more, she moved from having undefined power (me just pulling stuff out of my ass) to having a defined (albeit powerful) set of abilities.
However, she never used this power to push the story, or influence the players (other than to keep them unaware of her true nature), and focused almost her entire attention on corrupting the incubus player. Ontop of that, I did make her vulnerable to the forces behind the plot (lovecraftian horror-type things) to highlight, at the very least to the incubus player (and eventually to the others when the discovered how powerful she was), how serious the stuff going on was, and I was even considering having her killed/captured by the enemy, but even the mere mention of it to the incubus player made him very uncomfortable (he'd become quite attached to her), so i decided against it (In hindsight, considering the game was survival horror, and everyone knew it, I probably should have done it anyway).

And of course, the other players grew suspicious of her, and started investigating, to try and find out what she was (which was a slightly meta thought on their part, I'd given everyone something special about their character by this point, but the incubus player had, for obvious reasons, hidden what he got, so they were suspicious as to why he hadn't gotten anything, and suspected that he had, but was hiding it). I'd like to think i didn't straight up fiat away their investigations, instead the player pre-empted their investigations and came up with a "disguise" to convince the players that they were shapeshifting half dragons (which was somewhat believable, in my game, magic was outlawed and magical creatures were hunted down, so a half dragon without some means of hiding it's true form would be immediately run out of town/killed). Eventually the incubus player confessed, when the players were sent back in time to a point where they could get a commune (and outsiders of all types were welcome in the community, balors, pit fiends and solars all having brunch at the same cafe kinda deal), he figured there wouldn't be any point in hiding it when it became so trivial to discover the truth (the NPC didn't come back with the players, because what she used to travel with them was her only aspect on the material plane, and I ruled that aspects cant time travel without losing their connection to the main form and thus just dissipating).

Anyway, I guess this was more a bit of a rant about me worrying if I was falling into the trap of running a DMPC or not. I'd like to think that I wasn't, since from what I understand, DMPCs are all about ****waving, which I don't think this NPC was all about.

[Arbane]

If you'd give the NPC a break you wouldn't give a PC... they may be a GMPC.

If you've ever found it necessary to put the PCs' actions on hold so you can resolve the NPC's actions for any reason other than their reaction to the PCs... they may be a GMPC.

If they're supposed to adventure with the PCs but are higher level than all the PCs combined.... they may be a GMPC.

[JusticeZero]

If they are doing anything that the players can figure out a way to do on their own, it is a DMPC. My tolerance for such things is quite low, having seen them go wrong many a time.

[Ceaon]

To me, a DMPC means the DM's main priority moves away from the telling a (collaborative) story towards playing a character in that story, which is more of a player priority.

[Seto]

To me, having a DMPC in itself is not bad DMing. It becomes bad DMing when the DMPC gets more attention/importance than the PCs, does the players' job in their places and prevents them from having fun, always pulls miracles out of nowhere.
My definition of a DMPC is "a NPC who adventures with the party for a while and has an active role". My current DM does that, mainly to cover the party's weaknesses : for example, we had a NPC rogue travel with us in a trap-heavy dungeon, because there were no rogues in the party and we had no way to detect and disable traps. When our party's sorcerer's player was away, we had a Kobold sorceress accompany us and cast Divination for us.
Those were DMPCs ; but they never stole the fun from us. Instead, they buffed us and helped us doing what we couldn't have done by ourselves, gave us council when we asked for it, but never made the decisions in our place, etc. They helped create new storylines : when the rogue (who was a member of the Assassin Guild) tried to trick us into killing a priest, we found ourselves faced with a choice, and finally turned on the rogue. Now we're dragging him to justice, and helping the priest with a Resurrection spell.

So according to me, your Succubus is a DMPC, but that's okay as long as you don't fall in love with her and turn her into The Solution To Everything who will outshine PCs (which is the danger of having DMPCs).

[hymer]

I've found from previous threads that even defining a DMPC isn't something the playground agrees on. So in dealing with your case, let's focus on what you did rather than on what to call it.
Personally, I agree with you that you should have had her taken captive. Having an NPC with vaguely defined powers, or greater power than the PCs, walking around with the party is an absolute no-no in my book. So you should be asking your players rather than me. Did they like it? What about it did they like and not like? If another DM did it to you, would you like it? Why and why not?

[Ranting Fool]

..."a NPC who adventures with the party for a while and has an active role". My current DM does that, mainly to cover the party's weaknesses : ...

This is what I've done mostly because there was only 3 players and they wanted the classic 4 to a group. I now make a point of optimizing them as well as I can about 10% below the rest of the party (sometimes making a character under preform without RP-ing them as low int or just using them badly is hard :smalltongue:) for the most part my players love them / get upset if bad things happen to them.

Main point is an NPC who travels with the PC's is a supporting role (Story wise) where as a DMPC is a star (and quite often IS the story):smallbiggrin:

[Ranting Fool]

I've found from previous threads that even defining a DMPC isn't something the playground agrees on. So in dealing with your case, let's focus on what you did rather than on what to call it.
Personally, I agree with you that you should have had her taken captive. Having an NPC with vaguely defined powers, or greater power than the PCs, walking around with the party is an absolute no-no in my book. So you should be asking your players rather than me. Did they like it? What about it did they like and not like? If another DM did it to you, would you like it? Why and why not?

Always good advise

[The Insanity]

To me, having a DMPC in itself is not bad DMing. It becomes bad DMing when the DMPC gets more attention/importance than the PCs, does the players' job in their places and prevents them from having fun, always pulls miracles out of nowhere.
My definition of a DMPC is "a NPC who adventures with the party for a while and has an active role". My current DM does that, mainly to cover the party's weaknesses : for example, we had a NPC rogue travel with us in a trap-heavy dungeon, because there were no rogues in the party and we had no way to detect and disable traps. When our party's sorcerer's player was away, we had a Kobold sorceress accompany us and cast Divination for us.
Those were DMPCs ; but they never stole the fun from us. Instead, they buffed us and helped us doing what we couldn't have done by ourselves, gave us council when we asked for it, but never made the decisions in our place, etc. They helped create new storylines : when the rogue (who was a member of the Assassin Guild) tried to trick us into killing a priest, we found ourselves faced with a choice, and finally turned on the rogue. Now we're dragging him to justice, and helping the priest with a Resurrection spell.

So according to me, your Succubus is a DMPC, but that's okay as long as you don't fall in love with her and turn her into The Solution To Everything who will outshine PCs (which is the danger of having DMPCs).
This is how I do it too.

[nedz]

A DMPC is a Mary Sue.

Basically: it's when the DM becomes the main protagonist in their own story.

An NPC in a supporting role, or even one run by the players, is not a DMPC.

[molten_dragon]

For me there are two criteria that turn an NPC into a DMPC.

1. The NPC spends a considerable amount of time with the party, possibly even going adventuring with them.

2. The NPC does the players jobs as well as or better than the players do, or has some sort of special advantages that the players don't have.

I try to avoid using DMPCs as much as possible. If I have to send an NPC with the players to do something (like if they don't have a cleric, and I know they're going to need one) I try to make the NPC pretty bland and generic so it doesn't steal 'camera time' from the PCs.

[JusticeZero]

The point where a helpful NPC becomes a Mary Sue DMPC in my experience is not a question of "If" but a question of "When". The irritation starts happening as soon as your NPC does anything that a PC takes any pride in their ability to do. This isn't just their main role. Furthermore, they are often used for roles that are not actually needed, such as "the healer" in a party that contains a Ranger, a Wizard, and a Rogue with UMD. It fosters dependency.

[Keneth]

There's nothing inherently wrong with having a DMPC, so long as it's handled correctly.

Obviously, if you have an NPC that hangs around a perfectly well-rounded party and performs better than them, especially if it's in more than one field (i.e. it's a Mary Sue/Gary Stu type of character), then the NPC has to go, as you clearly want to be a player more than you want to be a DM.

Personally, I have several characters that can fill the roll of a PC, but that's primarily on account of the party often lacking the requisite number of players. Sometimes only two players can attend a session, and I've prepared encounters appropriate for a party of four. In such a case, I'd much rather have one of the NPCs tag along than change every encounter. Plus, they're expendable (as every good DMPC should be).

I also use them to fix disconnects in the story. My campaigns tend to be brutal, characters often die and resurrection is rarely an option. On occasion a TPK happens, and instead of resorting to a deus ex machina, I use a DMPC (temporarily) to keep the story going.

Still, it's hit and miss. Even after years of experience, I sometimes still fail to make DMPCs harmless to the story. If you have a choice, then the better choice is almost always "don't".

[The Insanity]

A DMPC is a Mary Sue.

Basically: it's when the DM becomes the main protagonist in their own story.

An NPC in a supporting role, or even one run by the players, is not a DMPC.
You forgot to add "IMO". That might be true in your game, but it's not in mine.

[Jormengand]

My brother DMed a game with a DMPC, of sorts, who was a cleric in a party of a ninja and a knight. (Yes, an odd combo, but...) The reason for his existence was because we couldn't really heal ourselves otherwise, and he was decked out with support spells and spontaneous conversion for healing. That is what a DMPC should do - the same as a normal PC might, but preferably taking a back role. A DM PC is simply a PC controlled by the DM, as one might expect.

[JusticeZero]

A Ninja has UMD if I recall correctly. Don't need a healer if you have UMD.

[Jormengand]

A Ninja has UMD if I recall correctly. Don't need a healer if you have UMD.

Yes, but this particular ninja wasn't U'ing any MDs. You don't need a healer, but it's really quite helpful to have a healer, and not worry about who's paying for which want of CLW, and so forth.

Also, I hate playing mundane characters only to have to cast spells everywhere. Seems pointless.

[Craft (Cheese)]

If they're supposed to adventure with the PCs but are higher level than all the PCs combined.... they may be a GMPC.

This is fun: Have a high-powered DMPC escort the players into the dungeon. Throw BBEG at the party that's way above their level. Watch them expect the DMPC to take care of it.

The BBEG one-shots the DMPC, then turns their attentions to the players.

[Keneth]

A Ninja has UMD if I recall correctly. Don't need a healer if you have UMD.

You don't need a healer period. You can heal just about anything naturally.

Just because you don't need something, doesn't mean it's not nice to have. Especially if it's free.

[JusticeZero]

That is still the difference between a want and a need. I want that one skill point I need to be able to use a healstick. I want the extra gold that i'd spend on healsticks. That last one is really weird by the way, since it comes at the cost of giving a third of the loot to an NPC to do the same thing.
But you don't need any of that. You need to know how to be self sufficient, by actually being self-sufficient. A healstick is a piece of technology. The party couldn't hire a mathematician, so we had to buy a pocket calculator instead.

[Blackjackg]

From reading through the OP's story, it seems to me that what you've got there isn't a DMPC, it's a villain. As far as I'm concerned, there's no problem with having a villain who's more powerful than the players, or even having that villain infiltrate the group for a while, as long as you avoid those pitfalls of DMPCing that the responders above me have noted (e.g., having the NPC solve problems that would be more fun for the players to have figured out, or having the NPC solve problems that were deliberately scaled so only the NPC could solve them).

I figure that the difference between an NPC and a DMPC is basically allotment of story time. When I first started playing in 1st ed., it was pretty usual in our groups to have a couple extra merc-types around who pitched in on combat and took a share of the treasure, but it was always clear who were the decision-makers and who were the hirelings and torchbearers. We barely knew their names, let alone their stories and goals. For me, that's a textbook NPC.

A DMPC, in contrast, gets about equal (or greater!) amounts of game time devoted to their character development, their goals, and what they're doing. That might be alright for the length of a quest, maybe, if the players are all interested in the story. But when the DMPC is a permanent fixture, it's a problem. It makes us question your priorities as a DM-- are you running this game for your players, or for yourself?

It becomes exponentially more problematic the more of the pitfalls you hit-- does the DMPC outshine the characters in every combat, solve all the puzzles, stumble on the best magic items and look way badass doing it? No player in the world has more fun when she's being constantly outshined by a DM-controlled character.

[Jormengand]

That is still the difference between a want and a need. I want that one skill point I need to be able to use a healstick. I want the extra gold that i'd spend on healsticks. That last one is really weird by the way, since it comes at the cost of giving a third of the loot to an NPC to do the same thing.
But you don't need any of that. You need to know how to be self sufficient, by actually being self-sufficient. A healstick is a piece of technology. The party couldn't hire a mathematician, so we had to buy a pocket calculator instead.

You don't need to have anything but a party of commoners with morningstars, light crossbows and enough ranks in cross-class skills to get by. It's Really Quite HelpfulTM to have a cleric to heal you, but you don't need it. It just means that it's going to get really boring if I'm standing there watching the knight beat everything up, standing behind her and poking a wand at her every round.

A DMPC covers the party's weaknesses, not always what the party is physically incapable of doing however much money, character creation and experience they throw at it.

[Red Fel]

If your NPC picks the rogue's pocket, you might be a DMPC.

If the dragon attacks your NPC and the dragon gets shaken, you might be a DMPC.

If Vecna wants to learn your NPC's secrets, you might be a DMPC.

If the Seven Sisters want to study magic with your NPC, you might be a DMPC.

... With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.

Really, in my mind, it boils down to this: If your NPC not only advances the plot, but does things the characters should be able to do in their place, it's a DMPC. Slays the monster? DMPC. Engages in diplomacy? DMPC. Leads the party? DMPC.

Further, if your NPC becomes player-resistant and plot-resistant, it's a DMPC. If the players try to kill it and fail because it has a ring of +20 against players, DMPC. If they collapse a dungeon on it and it survives, DMPC.* If they incite a revolution in its kingdom to overthrow the NPC, and the NPC simply tells the rabble to go home, and they do, DMPC.

Basically, DMPC is what happens when the DM falls in love with one of his non-villain NPCs, and wants to show the players how awesome it is.

And then you wind up with Jeff Foxworthy jokes. And nobody wants that.

*Note: This does not apply to BBEGs. Obviously, don't give them flat player-immunity, but letting them occasionally escape from situations where they're "presumed dead" rather than "actually killed" isn't a terrible thing.

[Jormengand]

If your NPC picks the rogue's pocket, you might be a DMPC.

If the dragon attacks your NPC and the dragon gets shaken, you might be a DMPC.

If Vecna wants to learn your NPC's secrets, you might be a DMPC.

If the Seven Sisters want to study magic with your NPC, you might be a DMPC.

... With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.

Really, in my mind, it boils down to this: If your NPC not only advances the plot, but does things the characters should be able to do in their place, it's a DMPC. Slays the monster? DMPC. Engages in diplomacy? DMPC. Leads the party? DMPC.

Further, if your NPC becomes player-resistant and plot-resistant, it's a DMPC. If the players try to kill it and fail because it has a ring of +20 against players, DMPC. If they collapse a dungeon on it and it survives, DMPC.* If they incite a revolution in its kingdom to overthrow the NPC, and the NPC simply tells the rabble to go home, and they do, DMPC.

Basically, DMPC is what happens when the DM falls in love with one of his non-villain NPCs, and wants to show the players how awesome it is.

And then you wind up with Jeff Foxworthy jokes. And nobody wants that.

*Note: This does not apply to BBEGs. Obviously, don't give them flat player-immunity, but letting them occasionally escape from situations where they're "presumed dead" rather than "actually killed" isn't a terrible thing.

That is a bad DMPC. A good DMPC generally supports the party, and is *gasp* a PC played by the DM.

[Blackjackg]

That is a bad DMPC. A good DMPC generally supports the party, and is *gasp* a PC played by the DM.

No disrespect intended, but it seems like you're the only one using this definition of DMPC. What you're describing, I would call an NPC, even though it's a member of the party.

[Jormengand]

No disrespect intended, but it seems like you're the only one using this definition of DMPC. What you're describing, I would call an NPC, even though it's a member of the party.

But unless you're going to assign the definition of "It's only a DMPC when it's bad" then that's the only sensible definition of DMPC that I can think of - a DMPC is a DM's PC. They either support the party, or play any of the numerous other roles that a normal party member does. Rather than, say, being 10 levels higher and killing everything.

[Red Fel]

No disrespect intended, but it seems like you're the only one using this definition of DMPC. What you're describing, I would call an NPC, even though it's a member of the party.

This. A DMPC is almost by definition bad. All NPCs are played by the DM, and that's a necessary thing. And nothing precludes the DM from placing an NPC in the party, although it creates a risk of DMPC-ness.

But the DMPC occurs when the DM decides that this NPC has to have a moment - any moment - that renders the characters irrelevant or unnecessary.

If the players decide they want to fight a monster, and the NPC uses Inspire Courage to make them better at it? Fine. He uses some wands of CLW to help them? Fine. He uses Shapeshift, becomes a Fire Giant, and pulverizes the monster himself? Not fine.

If the players decide they need a place to rest for the night, and the NPC rolls a local knowledge check to locate a nearby inn, fine. If he uses Aid Another while they set up camp, fine. If he gathers tinder for the fire, fine. If he manages to get them a room at the palace because he happens to be the son of the local noble, and by the way would you guys like some free stuff from the armory too, and who wants to join a secret society while they're here because the locals love me? Not fine.

[Blackjackg]

But unless you're going to assign the definition of "It's only a DMPC when it's bad" then that's the only sensible definition of DMPC that I can think of - a DMPC is a DM's PC. They either support the party, or play any of the numerous other roles that a normal party member does. Rather than, say, being 10 levels higher and killing everything.

I'll can't speak for anyone but myself on this, but here's my take on the thing.

A DM shouldn't have PCs. The defining feature of a PC isn't a party role, it's a question of whose story is being played. When it's a DM and one or more players, there's a nice and finely-crafted balance between the overwhelming power of the DM and the understanding that the players ultimately control the story because it's their story. A PC is not a member of the party, it's a character whose story is central.

So when a DM has a PC, it upsets the balance. The DM has all the power to tell their character's story the way they want it to be told. That will, as a rule (with maybe a few exceptions), be at the expense of the other PCs, and therefore at the expense of the players' fun. The DMPC doesn't have to be statistically overpowered for this to be the case-- all that it takes is for the DM to be more concerned (or even equally concerned) about his own character as he is about the players' characters.

Of course, that attitude can come with some really heinous examples, which is why so much of this thread has come out in the Jeff Foxworthy "You Might Be a DMPC If..." style. To bust out an old cliche, absolute power corrupts absolutely and a DM who is willing to commandeer the story for the sake of his own character could also be willing to bench the other characters in order to make his own character Really Badass. So some folks have horror stories about really awful DMPCs that get turned into jokes and cautionary tales; but even if a DMPC is not that bad, the concept of a PC run by the DM is inherently problematic.

Which is why I say that a party member run by the DM, who has no real goals to speak of and whose character is defined primarily by his relationships to the player-controlled PCs isn't a Dungeon Master Player Character, or even a Player Character at all, but a Non-Player Character.

[Tengu_temp]

If a DM could point at an NPC and say "this, this is my character", then it's a DMPC.

And no, DMPCs aren't bad by default. It's just that most of them are because few DMs can resist the urge to put their character in the spotlight. But I've seen it, and heard of it, done right.

[Jormengand]

If a DM could point at an NPC and say "this, this is my character", then it's a DMPC.

And no, DMPCs aren't bad by default. It's just that most of them are because few DMs can resist the urge to put their character in the spotlight. But I've seen it, and heard of it, done right.

Basically, this.

[Seto]

I'd say DMPCs are indeed PCs played by a DM. So they're not bad by definition, they're bad when they become a Mary Sue. But the debate is pointless if the problem is just that : we have different definitions.

The thing is, even when DMPCS get a lot of importance, it can be done right. It only makes sense that NPCs have depth, interests and powers of their own. They just need not to interfere with the players' fun.

Look at this : Tales of Wyre. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?58227-Tales-of-Wyre) This game has become a damn NOVEL. Almost every NPC has a story of his own, and an influence on the campaign world. (Heck, Shomei is sometimes more developed and active than the PCs themselves... '___'). It's not necessarily a bad thing. It shows the campaign world has texture and that things happen in it without the players controlling them. But every one of these things is more or less related to the players, and thus they're still the center of the story. They're not in charge of everything, but they are the ones who push the storylines in a way or another. And yet entire scenes, with only NPCs, happen in the DM's head without the players knowing. It doesn't disturb them, though, since they happen in the dark and not during the session, and have an importance only when they create a course of events that interact with the PCs' actions.
And this is how IMO a game should be ran.

[SimonMoon6]

Funnily enough, the very first D&D game I ran that lasted any amount of time involved me giving the group an NPC to cover what seemed to be their holes (he was a gnome cleric/illusionist). Someone then made a cleric PC, so this NPC wasn't as important anymore.

However, somewhere along the way, he went from being a DMPC to being a PCNPC, if that makes any sense, an NPC who was mostly being run by a PC. The PC "hired" him and he was quickly subservient to this PC who could dictate his actions in combat (but not elsewhere). And that became the start of the PCs getting more and more PCNPCs.

That was way back in 1st edition, of course.

[Keneth]

That last one is really weird by the way, since it comes at the cost of giving a third of the loot to an NPC to do the same thing.

Why would you give a third of the loot to the NPC? The rules don't dictate how the loot is split. :smallconfused:


A DMPC is almost by definition bad.

No, it really isn't. They're just prone to being bad.

[The Insanity]

No disrespect intended, but it seems like you're the only one using this definition of DMPC.
It's my definition as well.

[Blackjackg]

Yeah, it looks like I spoke too soon declaring that Jormungand was on his own on this one. I'm genuinely sorry for making that leap, and I hope no one was hurt by it.

I stand by my definition and my perspective, but it's pretty clear that there isn't any consensus about the definition of a DMPC or about whether they're problematic by nature. Sorry again for oversimplifying.

[Tim Proctor]

Yeah, DMPCs are bad... when the DM is bad. DMPCs are good, when the DM is good. My advice is to make them a support role, never a spellcaster (because those spells will always end up outshining).

One of my favorite characters is Daedalus, a spartan-esque fighter/engineer who is a spartan style fighter who maximizes Allied Defense and other AoE bonuses to his teammates, usually go Marshal/Fighter. Everyone loves gaining 10-12 AC +3 or 4 Initiative, etc. He practically does nothing in combat by himself, and in roleplay I have him pull a Teddy Westside and get side-tracked by engineering/architecture issues and not pay attention to what is happening outside of combat. He's just there to support a group, and if they don't need him in combat then I don't use him.

Another example would be a rogue that is good with traps and such, scouting, spying, etc. that could come back and explain what is going on but you don't want to give them diplomacy and such because then they you'll have NPCs talking to NPCs versus an NPC just giving information to the PCs.

Basically my point is that a good DMPC is a support to fill in certain roles and is severely handicapped in the other roles. The big roles you don't want NPCs to fulfill are: damage output, social skills, decision making, and being a mr. fix-it versatile spellcaster.

[137beth]

Yeah, it looks like I spoke too soon declaring that Jormungand was on his own on this one. I'm genuinely sorry for making that leap, and I hope no one was hurt by it.

I stand by my definition and my perspective, but it's pretty clear that there isn't any consensus about the definition of a DMPC or about whether they're problematic by nature. Sorry again for oversimplifying.

It's mine also:

Just parse the phrase "DMPC"--
it stands for Dungeon Master's Player Character...
which to me pretty obviously means "player character controlled/played by the DM".
Now, if the acronym were "BDMPC", then I could see 'bad' built into the definition:smalltongue:

[Blackjackg]

It's mine also:

Just parse the phrase "DMPC"--
it stands for Dungeon Master's Player Character...
which to me pretty obviously means "player character controlled/played by the DM".
Now, if the acronym were "BDMPC", then I could see 'bad' built into the definition:smalltongue:

To be fair, the phrase DMPC implies that there's something at least unusual going on, since the DM is not a Player. That's why the two official categories of character in the game are PC (Player Character) and NPC (Non-Player Character). So a Dungeon Master Player Character is, at least on the surface, a contradiction in terms.

We've got at least three different definitions of DMPC working here:

a character of lesser importance who is a member of the party and controlled by the DM (personally, I would call this an NPC rather than a DMPC);
a character controlled by the DM who is equal or greater in story prominence and time allocation to the Player Characters (this is the definition I've been using)
the same as #2, but is the strongest, the smartest, and the coolest character.


Regardless of where one draws the line for what is or isn't a DMPC, it doesn't seem like anybody is saying #3 is a good idea. Likewise, it seems like most folks agree that #1 is alright in most circumstances, regardless of whether you call it a DMPC or not.

Aside from the disagreement about which entity can be rightly called a "DMPC," the only major source of disagreement seems to be whether #2 is problematic or not. I think it is, for the reasons I gave in an earlier reply, but I can see there are some folks who disagree on that.

[Crake]

Yeah, I was thinking DMPC as a mary sue, simply because a player character is by definition, a character controlled by a player. The only way a DMPC could therefore exist is if the DM is playing in his own game (which would tend to lead to a mary sue situation). From the opinions I've gathered in this thread, I think I'd probably be most comfortable with calling the NPC a villain/hidden-in-plain-sight antagonist.

As for her power level, once I actually properly sat down and set out her capabilities, she became a demon lord aspect with CR roughly equal to that of the party. Obviously the party would never fight against her, simply because the incubus player would side with her, and instead of fighting, they would just teleport away or the incubus player would just diplomacy (through roleplay, not rollplay) the party into dealing with it, while the NPC would sit in his lap and giggle while doting on her "big strong man"

Obviously her main aspect was sitting in hell (custom planar setting, not nine hells) waiting for the souls to start pouring in from the cult the incubus player started for her (from his own volition no less, no prodding from her end). The main aspect was restricted from getting to the material plane through an NPC faction that highly restricted planar travel on the outer planes (this wasnt something i introduced just for her either, it was in place long before that). So based on her CR appropriate aspect, she wasn't stupidly more powerful than the party. She was more powerful than any individual (albeit only by a small margin), but I think this is acceptable, considering the hostility that would have immediately occurred should they have found out, and that this power would have only been used in self defence until the incubus player could come and back her up (or she teleported to safety).
In addition, in combat, the incubus player actually had a fake character sheet that listed her as his leadership cohort, and I didn't even control her in combat, she just acted as a beguiler (since thats what he decided to have her pretend to be, pretty fitting since she's a succubus, and he's a beguiler too, so good overlap in abilities), so it's not like I used her for that avenue of ego-boosting. I've talked to two out of the three of my players about what they think, the incubus player, and one of the others. The incubus player is 100% fine with how it was played, although to be fair he's probably a little more than biased. The other player says that, post game, after I told him about it, he could see how it could have devolved, and didn't like the potential that this NPC could have stolen the show, but admits, that until I explained everything, he didn't even consider the NPC anything more than the devil on the shoulder of the incubus player, of which I had something like that for each of the players anyway. One player had an intelligent item that had the personality traits of the god he followed, the other had an internal collection of consciousnesses that he could deliberate with when he wished, and the incubus player has a succubus corrupter whispering sweet nothings in his ear. So just for a bit of perspective, this wasn't something that was entirely unique to the player, it was more something that i gave to each player to let them drive their own personal stories that ran in tandem with the main story itself.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If the DMPC is stronger than the PCs, you're doing it wrong.
If the DM winds up talking to himself, you're doing it wrong.
If the players actively invite the character along, you're doing it right.
If the players consider the character an equal, you're doing it right.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Now, if the acronym were "BDMPC", then I could see 'bad' built into the definition:smalltongue:

Next campaign, I'm going to run a BDSMPC. AND NONE OF YOU CAN STOP ME!!

[Psyren]

If they are doing anything that the players can figure out a way to do on their own, it is a DMPC. My tolerance for such things is quite low, having seen them go wrong many a time.

I would say this is a good rule of thumb.


And no, DMPCs aren't bad by default. It's just that most of them are because few DMs can resist the urge to put their character in the spotlight. But I've seen it, and heard of it, done right.

They're possible to use well, but the poor examples are so prevalent and the possibility of pulling it off so remote that the community just tends to say "don't bother."

[QuintonBeck]

If the DMPC is stronger than the PCs, you're doing it wrong.
If the DM winds up talking to himself, you're doing it wrong.
If the players actively invite the character along, you're doing it right.
If the players consider the character an equal, you're doing it right.


The last two were pretty much what I was going to say. I've been careful to never force an NPC onto the party, the only reason people other than the PCs will be traveling with the party will be if the party wants them to.

I share Blackjackg's view on what the term DMPC means but I see why other people are using their definition. To me though, I try to only run NPCs and sometimes those NPCs get invited along by the party but even if they travel with them the entire campaign they're not DMPCs because I didn't make them so I could play in my game, I made them and then the PCs wanted them in their game and that's how I play them. They aren't the stars of the show even if they're standing next to them.

[JusticeZero]

It just means that it's going to get really boring if I'm standing there watching the knight beat everything up, standing behind her and poking a wand at her every round.[/I]
Even a Cleric shouldn't be "poking a wand at the Knight every round". Healing is a really inefficient use of combat rounds. Use healing in the manner of "We all have a vicious battle, hacking and stabbing away, then when everyone but us is laying on the floor, we pull out the kit and clean up so that we can make a picture perfect entrance to the next major fight."

[IronFist]

Even a Cleric shouldn't be "poking a wand at the Knight every round". Healing is a really inefficient use of combat rounds. Use healing in the manner of "We all have a vicious battle, hacking and stabbing away, then when everyone but us is laying on the floor, we pull out the kit and clean up so that we can make a picture perfect entrance to the next major fight."

Well, healing is also important if it can guarantee that the right person will get to act next round.

[137beth]

Next campaign, I'm going to run a BDSMPC. AND NONE OF YOU CAN STOP ME!!

Bad Dungeon Sue Master Player Character:smallconfused:?
Big Dumb Sue Mary Player Character?

Sorry, I'm tired today...what does BDSMPC stand for?:smallredface:

[nedz]

Bad Dungeon Sue Master Player Character:smallconfused:?
Big Dumb Sue Mary Player Character?

Sorry, I'm tired today...what does BDSMPC stand for?:smallredface:

Just type the first four letters into google.

[JusticeZero]

Well, healing is also important if it can guarantee that the right person will get to act next round.
If you are finding that situation coming up often, taking someone off the line to heal is not the answer. That stray swing with a pick is probably best addressed with a potion. You are better served by having everyone on the line dealing with the damage sources directly.

[Tim Proctor]

Just type the first four letters into google.
Why did I do that... :(, why was it really satisfying?

Any NPC (other than on the intro set) should never overpower the group.

[scurv]

Well IF you can make valid comparisons to Mary sue in regards to the npc, One should ask if it is a DMPC

[The Insanity]

If you are finding that situation coming up often, taking someone off the line to heal is not the answer. That stray swing with a pick is probably best addressed with a potion. You are better served by having everyone on the line dealing with the damage sources directly.
Except when it's not a player that is healing, but an NPC that got added to the team specifically for healing. Unless you're saying that the healer NPC shouldn't heal, but fight, but then we're getting dangerously close to the (bad)DMPC territory, which we are trying to avoid. If the party does need healing in combat, then it's better if it's done by an NPC than a PC, don't you think? And drinking potions takes actions and provokes.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Next campaign, I'm going to run a BDSMPC. AND NONE OF YOU CAN STOP ME!!
Not even if we break out the ropes and handcuffs to stop you from wait a minute...

[137beth]

Just type the first four letters into google.

Eeek, you're like one of those flash games that try telling the player they can skip a level by pressing ALT+F4.

But ya know what? I'm going to continue to pretend that BDSMPC stands for "Big Dump Sue Mary Personal Computer"...

[JusticeZero]

Except when it's not a player that is healing, but an NPC that got added to the team specifically for healing. Unless you're saying that the healer NPC shouldn't heal, but fight, but then we're getting dangerously close to the (bad)DMPC territory, which we are trying to avoid. If the party does need healing in combat, then it's better if it's done by an NPC than a PC, don't you think? And drinking potions takes actions and provokes.
The healing character is a pure luxury. Healing is a role that can be easily filled adequately with items. If you want it filled exceptionally, the party should spend the resource of a player willing to play that character. If not, they should address the issue by being more careful not to get maimed in combat, and the GM should address the issue by not overwhelming the party to the point that you feel it necessary to have a babysitter.

[Talothorn]

I'll can't speak for anyone but myself on this, but here's my take on the thing.

A DM shouldn't have PCs. The defining feature of a PC isn't a party role, it's a question of whose story is being played. When it's a DM and one or more players, there's a nice and finely-crafted balance between the overwhelming power of the DM and the understanding that the players ultimately control the story because it's their story. A PC is not a member of the party, it's a character whose story is central.

So when a DM has a PC, it upsets the balance. The DM has all the power to tell their character's story the way they want it to be told. That will, as a rule (with maybe a few exceptions), be at the expense of the other PCs, and therefore at the expense of the players' fun. The DMPC doesn't have to be statistically overpowered for this to be the case-- all that it takes is for the DM to be more concerned (or even equally concerned) about his own character as he is about the players' characters.

Of course, that attitude can come with some really heinous examples, which is why so much of this thread has come out in the Jeff Foxworthy "You Might Be a DMPC If..." style. To bust out an old cliche, absolute power corrupts absolutely and a DM who is willing to commandeer the story for the sake of his own character could also be willing to bench the other characters in order to make his own character Really Badass. So some folks have horror stories about really awful DMPCs that get turned into jokes and cautionary tales; but even if a DMPC is not that bad, the concept of a PC run by the DM is inherently problematic.

Which is why I say that a party member run by the DM, who has no real goals to speak of and whose character is defined primarily by his relationships to the player-controlled PCs isn't a Dungeon Master Player Character, or even a Player Character at all, but a Non-Player Character.

I almost completely agree, except for the last paragraph. There is nothing wrong with having a goal oriented, developed npc. It makes for a good story and immersive world. The npc becomes a dmpc when the dm thinks he or she can run a character through the adventure or campaign as a player as well as dm. The dm has lots of characters they play. They are the npcs. Some will be memorable. Some will be powerful. Some will be heroes and some villains. None should be the dungeon master's player character.

(I sometimes make my players think an npc is a mary or gary dmpc, to make it more dramatic and unexpected when that character is eviscerated by kobolds.)

[Arbane]

To bust out an old cliche, absolute power corrupts absolutely and a DM who is willing to commandeer the story for the sake of his own character could also be willing to bench the other characters in order to make his own character Really Badass. So some folks have horror stories about really awful DMPCs that get turned into jokes and cautionary tales; but even if a DMPC is not that bad, the concept of a PC run by the DM is inherently problematic.


Paging Trekkin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275152), Trekkin to the white courtesy phone, please.... :smallbiggrin:

[nedz]

Why did I do that... :(, why was it really satisfying?


Eeek, you're like one of those flash games that try telling the player they can skip a level by pressing ALT+F4.

Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful :smallredface:

Before you tie yourselves up in knots, I didn't make the suggestion — I just explained what she said.

[justiceforall]

If the DMPC is stronger than the PCs, you're doing it wrong.
If the DM winds up talking to himself, you're doing it wrong.
If the players actively invite the character along, you're doing it right.
If the players consider the character an equal, you're doing it right.


This seems highly restricted to very simple, straightforward ways of running your games. The first and third rules dictate that no NPCs can ever be more powerful than the PCs (unless presumably, they are bad guys). The second rule dictates that NPCs never have dialogue with anyone other than the PCs.

I've left groups that adhere to the rules stated above. The world doesn't feel like a world if the PCs are the only ones in it that matter. The story is pretty dull if its *only* about the PCs, because the rest of the world has no cause-and-effect.

Maybe I've just been playing RPGs too long, but the PCs-are-the-only-thing-going-on mentality of doing things just doesn't have much longevity for me any more.

[ericgrau]

Generally I'd say any NPC whose level is greater than PC level - 2, who joins the party. And remember optimization or favoritism can raise his effective level. When an NPC takes spotlight as if he were a PC, then he is a DMPC.

[Craft (Cheese)]

BWAHAHAHA, my work here is complete!!! Though this does give me an idea for a Nocticula-worshipping character...

On topic though: Have all the players in the group give anonymous votes as to which currently established character in the campaign should be killed. They unanimously vote a single NPC.

Do you keep the NPC alive anyway? If so, you've got a DMPC on your hands. My definition of a DMPC is when a DM gets so attached to one character that preserving and promoting that character becomes more important than the game itself. Notice that by my definition a DMPC doesn't need to be traveling with the party: There's a such thing as getting too attached to a villain or a questgiver, and the problem with these is fundamentally the same as the problem with a DM-controlled party member (I'm sure you've all played in a campaign where there's one villain that just isn't allowed to fail ever, no matter how strong the players get and how sick they are of losing to them).

[justiceforall]

So your view here is the players have to have it their way 110% of the time, or its a bad game? Even down to dictating which NPCs get to live or die?

[ericgrau]

The idea is that the DM shouldn't be playing with himself for any large part of the session, or why are the players wasting their evening sitting there? A villains that is stronger than the PCs is fine, as long as it is a defeatable or else avoidable challenge. A DMPC that participates more than a PC is usually not ok.

[Hamste]

So your view here is the players have to have it their way 110% of the time, or its a bad game? Even down to dictating which NPCs get to live or die?
You realize that is an example right? The players wouldn't actually be voting to kill them off.
It could just as well be that the players are attacking the character (or a monster) and you have to decide whether to fudge the rolls to save it or not. The only difference is that DMs tend to fudge rolls a lot on just about any creature so that they would feel more ok admitting they would fudge the rolls and they would feel justified doing so. The point of the example is for DMs to self analyze and to realize when they get so attached to a character they would be willing to lie or go back on their word to save it from death. It is in no way suggesting you should kill off NPCs just because the party doesn't like them.

[Red Fel]

You realize that is an example right? The players wouldn't actually be voting to kill them off.
It could just as well be that the players are attacking the character (or a monster) and you have to decide whether to fudge the rolls to save it or not. The only difference is that DMs tend to fudge rolls a lot on just about any creature so that they would feel more ok admitting they would fudge the rolls and they would feel justified doing so. The point of the example is for DMs to self analyze and to realize when they get so attached to a character they would be willing to lie or go back on their word to save it from death. It is in no way suggesting you should kill off NPCs just because the party doesn't like them.

Exactly.

When the DM has decided to give an NPC plot-immunity, even if that NPC was previously insignificant, and in no other way overpowers the characters, it is a bad DMPC. The players shouldn't literally be voting to kill it; that's merely a mental exercise to illustrate whether the DM was willing to kill off his beloved immortal cabbage vendor.

[justiceforall]

You realize that is an example right? The players wouldn't actually be voting to kill them off.

You realise my question was more to the attitude of the poster than the example provided right?

Mostly I'm drawing focus to what I feel is the majority view of the posters in this thread - that if the game isn't utterly PC driven it's bad, and the DM should stop whatever they were doing and refocus entirely on the PCs.

Is this wrong or bad? No, this is an entirely subjective game where the point is to enjoy oneself. I just find the attitude that everything should *entirely* revolve around the PCs, and that the DM should never use an NPC that acts like another character in the world, etc. etc. to be surprising and saddening.

And I'm not even saying I didn't use to play with people who had that attitude. I ran the same set of adventures for two groups I play with, one of the sessions has the PCs hook up with a few heroes of yesteryear who are far higher level than them and tag along. The PCs still get to do stuff, fight encounters, have opinions, etc, but they are no longer the boss dogs.

Group 1 - absolutely loved it. They loved the NPCs and they remain some of their favourite NPCs in the world.

Group 2 - utterly detested it, rebelled, and one of the players quit.

I do not play with Group 2 any more.

[JusticeZero]

We are also speaking from the point of reference that as soon as an NPC starts following us around and gets a character sheet, it ALWAYS turns into the GM playing with himself and making the other party members feeling superfluous.

[danzibr]

This is fun: Have a high-powered DMPC escort the players into the dungeon. Throw BBEG at the party that's way above their level. Watch them expect the DMPC to take care of it.

The BBEG one-shots the DMPC, then turns their attentions to the players.
I like it :)

Might be using this soon.

[The Insanity]

The healing character is a pure luxury.
Which I'm totally in my right to provide, especially if it's something the players want.


Healing is a role that can be easily filled adequately with items.
Items cost and some of them can't be efficiently used in combat.


If you want it filled exceptionally, the party should spend the resource of a player willing to play that character.
Well, none of the players wants to play a healer, at least not an in-combat healer.


If not, they should address the issue by being more careful not to get maimed in combat, and the GM should address the issue by not overwhelming the party to the point that you feel it necessary to have a babysitter.
Or they can continue playing their preferred way, because, you know, they like it.


We are also speaking from the point of reference that as soon as an NPC starts following us around and gets a character sheet, it ALWAYS turns into the GM playing with himself and making the other party members feeling superfluous.
It doesn't.

[JusticeZero]

Well, neither I nor the people i've played with have ever seen it done "right" from any GM, ever. Some of those GMs presumably thought they were doing a good job.

[The Insanity]

Well, you're not the only people in the world that play D&D. So...

[Craft (Cheese)]

You realise my question was more to the attitude of the poster than the example provided right?

Mostly I'm drawing focus to what I feel is the majority view of the posters in this thread - that if the game isn't utterly PC driven it's bad, and the DM should stop whatever they were doing and refocus entirely on the PCs.

Is this wrong or bad? No, this is an entirely subjective game where the point is to enjoy oneself. I just find the attitude that everything should *entirely* revolve around the PCs, and that the DM should never use an NPC that acts like another character in the world, etc. etc. to be surprising and saddening.

I don't believe the game should be PC-focused, but I do believe the game should be player-focused. These are not the same thing. If something you're doing at the table is making everybody unhappy, then it'd be a good idea to stop doing that. If your players love having the party NPC around and it's their favorite character in the campaign, then great! If they don't, then not great, and you should do something about it. It becomes a problem when the NPC becomes more important than keeping the players (not necessarily your PCs) happy.

(Yes, I recognize the DM is also a player and they need to be happy too. That just means I advocate compromises: A good DM can find a solution that makes everyone happy. Dissolving the group is the maximally destructive outcome and should only be done when no good compromise can be reached.)

[ElenionAncalima]

I think that like most good gm/bad gm questions, it comes down to being aware of what your players want out to the game.

I have played with a gm who would usually end the campaign controlling a couple npcs. However, it was never a problem for a few reasons. First, the characters only contributed opinions when asked and only took loot when it was offered. Second, all of the characters were npcs that someone in the group had really connected with...usually we were required to roll diplomacy or somehow convince the character to join us permanantly. As a group, we enjoyed recruiting NPCs and got to choose who joined, so we never resented them.

However, a couple of us joined a game with a different DM. From before the first session, the GM wouldn't stop talking about his NPC (a level 60, to our level 8). Once we got to the game, he was constantly having the NPC jump into to disable traps, identify items and resolve almost all skill checks. He even had the NPC distribute loot, instead of letting us agree who got what. Naturally, the campaign didn't last long.

The best strategy, IMHO, would be to ask your players how they feel about your character and GMNPCs in general. Ask them to be honest and be willing to reconsider the character if you discover that they don't like her being around.

[IronFist]

If you are finding that situation coming up often, taking someone off the line to heal is not the answer. That stray swing with a pick is probably best addressed with a potion. You are better served by having everyone on the line dealing with the damage sources directly.

I'm sorry, but this is 100% wrong.
Potions take full-round actions to be applied to other characters and that is if your DM rules you can do it (by RAW it can only be done if they are unconscious). The character that needs healing can't take the potion itself, because obviously it needs that action to do something useful (the reason you wanted to heal it in the first place).
I'm not talking about a stray swing with a pick. I'm talking about someone with the right spell/feat for the right target. If you're fighting something that only one character can hit, you should be keeping that character alive and well.
You can't really say "healing is not optimal" if you think "dealing direct damage" is the optimal answer for every problem.

TL;DR It's a lot more complicated than you make it seem.

[Psyren]

Potions also provoke, which can easily negate their benefit. Or worse, the enemy can simply use their AoO to sunder your potion before you down it, then full-attack next round. And even if you do drink it successfully, the amount they heal compared to a dedicated healer is pretty negligible.

[SimonMoon6]

I like it :)

Might be using this soon.

I had an idea for a campaign starter that I never got around to using which is something along these lines. The idea would be:

The players are apprentice adventurers who have been studying at a school for adventurers. Finally, they have a chance to go on an actual adventure, but they are being supervised by one of their supposedly high-level teachers. The mission is something boring, like guarding a caravan. The idea would be that the characters may run into some low-level encounters. Their teacher won't help out unless they get into serious trouble.

Well, after a token random encounter or two to set the tone, suddenly a BBEG arrives to steal the precious treasure that the caravan is carrying. (It was actually something pretty significant, but it was being camouflaged as being insignificant by having mere 1st level adventurers guarding it.) And as suggested, the BBEG quickly one-shots the teacher.

Now, the 1st level adventurers have some hard choices to make. Do they run? Do they stay and fight and probably die? Do they bargain with the BBEG? Do they go find the caravan's treasure and (a) use it against the BBEG, (b) destroy it, (c) run off with it?

[IronFist]

I'm not even saying you need a dedicated healer - I'm just saying the ability to heal is useful in several situations. You don't need a healbot, you need someone that knows when to attack, when to buff and when to heal.
Or you could have an Oradin. That works as well. :smallwink:

[killem2]

A DMPC is a Mary Sue.

Basically: it's when the DM becomes the main protagonist in their own story.

An NPC in a supporting role, or even one run by the players, is not a DMPC.

That's not correct.

A DMPC, is a player character of a dungeon master.

It is illogical and opinionated to assume all dungeon masters meta game their player characters in such a fashion.

That is not to say, there is no challenge to portraying your own character while maintaining integrity of your story to everyone else.

[Red Fel]

That's not correct.

A DMPC, is a player character of a dungeon master.

It is illogical and opinionated to assume all dungeon masters meta game their player characters in such a fashion.

That is not to say, there is no challenge to portraying your own character while maintaining integrity of your story to everyone else.

The problem is one of extrapolation.

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

The PCs are the heroes of the story. The plot revolves around their actions. They are stronger, smarter, faster, etc., than the average person in their world.

They are the ones who must face the obstacles placed by fate (read: the DM) as they adventure. Unless they have really sophisticated scrying, they aren't likely to know what all of those obstacles are; that's what makes it an adventure instead of just a slog.

Now, suppose one of those PCs just happens to share a mind with the fate of the universe itself (read: the DM). Yes, we can assume that this PC's player (the DM) is not metagaming; and perhaps he is not. But how can you ensure against metagame knowledge? How can your DM's PC guarantee that he will not act on the knowledge the DM has about the game?

Well, you could play the entire game from randomized tables. That way the DM simply wouldn't know what comes next. It keeps things interesting, but it risks awesome lethality, and may lack any cohesive narrative structure.

The DM could consciously limit his PC. He could have the PC prepare the exact same spells each day, unless the players specifically request otherwise; or he could trust the PC's spell choices to the players. But how does that make any sense from an RP perspective? Who is this idiot spellcaster, preparing the same spells as always, or doing exactly what his party tells him, never once thinking for himself? Might as well give the players a hireling or cohort and be done with it. Alternatively, the DM could explicitly pick spells knowing they'd be unhelpful in the upcoming encounters. But why even do that?

And that's the problem. If you don't randomize the campaign, or fix the DM's PC, there is always that very real risk that the DM's PC will make choices that will make things easier for everyone, based on the DM's exclusive knowledge of future events. Even if the DM isn't actively doing this, it's extraordinarily difficult for an ordinary player to divorce player knowledge from character knowledge; imagine how hard it must be for the DMPC.

The DMPC will, at some point, be forced into conflict with the DM. If the DMPC does not have the tools to handle a given encounter or plot point, and neither do the rest of the PCs, it will look like blatant action by the DM; why would the DMPC not have that needed spell? By contrast, if the DMPC does have the tools needed, it will look like blatant action by the DM; of course he gave his character the tools necessary to overcome the obstacle.

It's a no-win situation, unless your players are uniquely understanding and trusting.

[nedz]

A DMPC is a Mary Sue.

Basically: it's when the DM becomes the main protagonist in their own story.

An NPC in a supporting role, or even one run by the players, is not a DMPC.That's not correct.

A DMPC, is a player character of a dungeon master.

It is illogical and opinionated to assume all dungeon masters meta game their player characters in such a fashion.

That is not to say, there is no challenge to portraying your own character while maintaining integrity of your story to everyone else.

It it perfectly logical: Meta gaming in this situation is unavoidable.

The PCs are the Protagonists in the story, the DM is running the Antagonists as well as the bystanders etc.

So you have no separation of information. You cannot fail to act upon that information, even by omission. This goes for the actions of the DMPC as well as the other NPCs.

Opinionated ? Well this is an opinion thread so maybe.

But there again: maybe you need to think about your DMing style, most DMs do not run PCs at the same time; principally for this reason. Ask yourself the question: what does it bring to the game ?

[Hecuba]

Well, neither I nor the people i've played with have ever seen it done "right" from any GM, ever. Some of those GMs presumably thought they were doing a good job.

I've seen it done quite well, quite often.
I actually do it on a regular basis at a table where we rotate DM duties weekly.

I've also seen it done quite poorly, and more often.

The underlying issue is that it requires proactive restraint, which is a learned skill.
Ultimately, before I would trust a DM to run a DMPC, I would ask:

Would I trust them to run my character responsibly if I was not present?
Would I trust them to play a PC in module they had effectively memorized?
Is there a reason why the character cannot be rotated along the players instead?


When in doubt, ask them if the character can be controlled by the PCs while present instead. If they say no, they probably shouldn't be running a DMPC.

The rotation need not actually happen*. But if they are unwilling and can't give a very good reason, I take that as a big warning.

If they say yes, take a look at how the players use the extra character. If they use it primarily to support their PC rather than the group as a whole, it's a good warning for when they are DM.

*For example, someone I play with regularly really dislikes playing casters, but feels compelled to chip in when we rotate an NPC or an absent player's PC.

[Ranting Fool]

I just wonder how many of those who hate the idea of DMPC's are DM's full time (rather then just do a small adventure every now and again) and I wonder how many are mostly PC's :smallbiggrin: :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

For my sins I am almost always the DM and my current campaign has been going on for about 2 years (planning on finishing it up before xmas) and I've had NPC's join the party full time (Generally after the PC's went out to recruit them for what ever quest they are on and wanted a skilled rogue/tracker/healbot/meat shield and liked them enough to convince them to stay with the party) and I've fallen into many of the common DMPC traps - Making them too good and outshine the party/too useful to plot/not wanting them to die ect. So I've had to tone them down in optimization/make sure any connection they have to any main plot arcs is only enough to keep the Players interested/kill them off.

The implication of many that as a DM I use DMPC's to gain center stage/steal the spotlight/really want to be a PC (Which is only slightly true sometimes :smallbiggrin:) is a tad insulting.

I see a DMPC as a gaming tool (albeit one with a lot of pitfalls) and just another version of the BBEG but aiding the players rather then apposing them. But back to the OP the major difference and danger between NPC / DMPC is that the DMPC tends to get a lot more "Screen time" then the BBEG or monsters or other NPC's (Which I often like and consider "Mine" even if they are just a drunken shopkeeper or Impish Imp familiar)

Oh and the meta-gaming is always a real problem which is why I tend to keep away from spellcasters (though favored souls make nice hea-lbots :smalltongue:) as well as getting the PC's to take turns controlling them in combat / PC's picking feats/abilities that would fit the character.

Right rant of :smallbiggrin: (I sure do use a lot of brackets)

[Tim Proctor]

I almost always DM, and think the DMPC is a bad idea 90% of the time. Without repeating what I already wrote, I'll just say that you're probably better off with a hireling ran by a PC.

[137beth]

We are also speaking from the point of reference that as soon as an NPC starts following us around and gets a character sheet, it ALWAYS turns into the GM playing with himself and making the other party members feeling superfluous.

It seems strange that adding another character with the same power/versatility as a PC makes the rest of the party superfluous. Would you say that another player joining the group would make the other party members feel superfluous?

[Red Fel]

It seems strange that adding another character with the same power/versatility as a PC makes the rest of the party superfluous. Would you say that another player joining the group would make the other party members feel superfluous?

A new party member would joining the group would not make the rest feel superfluous.

A new party member who could read the DM's mind, prepare for encounters in advance without divination, and interact with NPCs without the involvement of other players would make the rest feel superfluous.

[Jormengand]

A new party member would joining the group would not make the rest feel superfluous.

A new party member who could read the DM's mind, prepare for encounters in advance without divination, and interact with NPCs without the involvement of other players would make the rest feel superfluous.

Yes, and by the same merit all the NPCs know the BBEG's master plan because the DM knows it. The same way my ninja with no ranks in Knowledge (religion) asks specifically for a Cure Light Wounds spell in the knowledge that he's lost seven hit points, instead of leaving the cleric to judge the extent of the damage. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Your DM is a lot more of a metagamer than mine.

[JusticeZero]

Furthermore, having the GM say "My character does X," where X is a skill you like to think of yourself as being pretty good at, "and succeeds!" took away your chance to look awesome. Having another player succeed at the same check just means that the other guy got to look cool this time. The GM is already the dispenser of awesome. They don't need to themself be awesome, since they can cheat.

[nedz]

I mostly DM and I do use NPCs, even ones which join the party, but they are never DMPCs. If it comes to combat, and it usually does, then I prefer to have one of the players run them.

The main problems are the unavoidable metagaming and the fact that I have plenty of other stuff to do.

[Shining Wrath]

When they start taking cuts of XP and GP.

[TabletopGamer]

I use DMPCs all the time my party never complains. Granted its 2 people so we need a 3rd person to make the game at least possible.

Typically I try to make a unoptimized character, purely stock.
I did play the Crypt of the Everflame with a Doppelganger character with Expert Levels, eventually giving him levels in Ranger to give him better abilities with Crossbows.

I asked the players after each session what they thought of the game and they know I like constructive criticism and none had an issue, I normally let our Cavalier(Dumb choice for a Crypt game) and the Rogue do their things with my DMPC as backup.

So I think it happens solely when you bring a NPC along with the intent for them to be an aid to the party or if your taking more active part in the villains moves and actions outside of the plot.