When are DMPCs needed?

[FearlessGnome]

We just got another thread where a player has a problem with a DMPC. What I want to ask is, do DMs ever really need a DMPC? I have only DM'd online, though I've played around a table for years. From what I've seen... sometimes the players need help, and then they find an NPC. A nice, reasonably fleshed out, reliable or unreliable NPC with motives of their own, who stays in town.

I get that sometimes the party is small, and another character to fill a certain role would be very useful, but... From the DM's perspective, is it so important to have a fourth or fifth character with your players? Can't you just hand out a couple of extra items and adjust the obstacles and encounters?

[Curmudgeon]

Maybe if the PCs are already deep in an adventure, and one of the players doesn't show up for a session. Then a fellow wandering adventurer could happen by and help out briefly (i.e., for the session when the party is short one PC). This is much easier than trying to re-structure a campaign, on the fly, that's already been power-matched to the regular size party.

[BRC]

"Needed": never.

"Acceptable" sometimes. But it depends on your definition. I've seen people who literally define a DMPC done well as "not a DMPC, but an NPC that accompanies the party"

[Amphetryon]

"Needed": never.

"Acceptable" sometimes. But it depends on your definition. I've seen people who literally define a DMPC done well as "not a DMPC, but an NPC that accompanies the party"

Exactly. A lot of the nature of the response here depends on exactly how you're defining "DMPC." As a DM, I ran a Buomman Psychic Warrior for a while in a group that was otherwise devoid of a heavy hitter; the choice of Race was specifically so that the PsyWar couldn't be the one dealing with NPCs or giving advice on how to solve encounters without the other PCs specifically working to get those results. Was it a DMPC? Was it just an accompanying NPC filling a role the party asked me to fill?

[Blackjackg]

"Needed": never.

"Acceptable" sometimes. But it depends on your definition. I've seen people who literally define a DMPC done well as "not a DMPC, but an NPC that accompanies the party"

I'm one of those people. There are a few threads active right now talking about the definition of DMPC and when it's ok. I like Tengu_Temp's definition for its succinctness (this is not a direct quote; I'm paraphrasing):


If a DM can point to a character and say "That's my character," it's a DMPC

Using that definition, I'd say a DMPC is definitely never necessary and probably never a good idea. Using other definitions, it's still probably never necessary but may be a good idea.

[Talya]

When a specific role is needed for the party to succeed, yet nobody in the party is playing that role.

It's difficult to separate DMNCP from simple NPCs. The simplest definition of DMNPC is "NPC that adventures with the party."

I have a pirate-themed game where the party has a ship, but don't have nearly enough PC crew to run it. I needed to create crew with certain skills and qualities. Most of them are Expert 2/Swashbuckler 1-3 and the party is actually level 8, so I'm not sure most of them count, even though much of the time they DO adventure with the party. They're clearly cannon-fodder.

However, they have absolutely nobody playing a healer/divine caster. As one of the crew (and because it fit with a temple visit they made), they acquired a Favored Soul for their crew. She's focused primarily on healing and restoration spells, along with a few bits of utility that they lack. Her deity's favored weapon is a whip, so she's only ever going to be in a support role in melee, too. Lastly, they're on a 40 point buy. Since I designed her by PC rules, she's got unfocused base ability scores of 14/14/14/14/14/16. I ensured the party is rarely going to need to protect her, that she can hold her own in any situation they bring her on, but she will never ever overshadow them. She'd be boring as hell to play as a PC, but she's a perfect DMNPC, because she fills a missing role, she's no burden to the party, and she'll never, ever grab the spotlight.

[The Insanity]

A DMPC is an NPC that would be a PC if he wasn't an NPC. He can be bad or good, depending on the DM.

[ahenobarbi]

Never. "Party lacks a vital member" should be challenge for the party to overcome, not an excuse for DM to insert his character in the only place (([s]he)|(it)) doesn't have complete controle.

If your pary lacks a healer then think. Spend some money on wands (reasonable cleric would use a wand anyways). Buy healing belts. Items that enchance natural healing...

If your party doesn't have melee then think. Summon monster. Buy a dog (or a mule). BFC to make sure enemies can't approach you while you ill them from distance.

If your party doesn't have a "face" then think. Buy a scroll of charm person. Bribe...

If your party lacks a damage dealer... wait how did you do that? Virtually all classes can deal damage.

And DM should take party layout into account when designing encounters. If all players chose orkish barbarians it might be a bad idea to design sophisticated intrigue. But it might be a good idea to send them to negotiate with neighbor tribe to reasonably challenge their weakness (and have them figth a ritual 4 vs 4 match sice they chose barbs they probably do want to do some d12 rolling).


EDIT: By DMPC I understand a character inserted into a party by the DM. If players decided to seek out and hire a bard to represent them before a king it's ok (also it's a good idea for DM to make sure the bard appears only briefly in the story).

[Talya]

Never. "Party lacks a vital member" should be challenge for the party to overcome, not an excuse for DM to insert his character in the only place (([s]he)|(it)) doesn't have complete controle.

If your pary lacks a healer then think. Spend some money on wands (reasonable cleric would use a wand anyways). Buy healing belts. Items that enchance natural healing...

If your party doesn't have melee then think. Summon monster. Buy a dog (or a mule). BFC to make sure enemies can't approach you while you ill them from distance.

If your party doesn't have a "face" then think. Buy a scroll of charm person. Bribe...

If your party lacks a damage dealer... wait how did you do that? Virtually all classes can deal damage.

And DM should take party layout into account when designing encounters. If all players chose orkish barbarians it might be a bad idea to design sophisticated intrigue. But it might be a good idea to send them to negotiate with neighbor tribe to reasonably challenge their weakness (and have them figth a ritual 4 vs 4 match sice they chose barbs they probably do want to do some d12 rolling).


EDIT: By DMPC I understand a character inserted into a party by the DM. If players decided to seek out and hire a bard to represent them before a king it's ok (also it's a good idea for DM to make sure the bard appears only briefly in the story).

I generally disagree. I don't like the world to feel solipsistic as a player. I want the NPCs to be as alive and as much a part of the story as mine is. They may not be in a starring role (except for the antagonist, who is in a starring role), but they are still every bit as much a part of the story.

DMNPCs can make things much easier for the party. They also provide subplots (a PC in the pirate party, as an example, has decided to try to romance the favored soul, which opens up all sorts of fun I can have with her.) The main concern is not their existence, but rather ensuring that they never steal the spotlight from the PCs.

[ahenobarbi]

I generally disagree. I don't like the world to feel solipsistic as a player. I want the NPCs to be as alive and as much a part of the story as mine is. They may not be in a starring role (except for the antagonist, who is in a starring role), but they are still every bit as much a part of the story.

DMNPCs can make things much easier for the party. They also provide subplots (a PC in the pirate party, as an example, has decided to try to romance the favored soul, which opens up all sorts of fun I can have with her.) The main concern is not their existence, but rather ensuring that they never steal the spotlight from the PCs.

Let me reword: If DMPC is "fullfilling a reqiured role" it's by definition stealing spotlight from PCs.

Obviously you want NPCs as part of the story, but they (IMHO) shoudn't be part of the party. So it's ok for your pirate PC to have a favored soul GF but no bringing her on adventures (unless she can show us her PC badge).

Why? Because either she's competent and there are metagamy reasons not to (she will steal spotlight) or she isn't and there is IC reason to not do it (don't want to endanger her, do ya?).

[Blackjackg]

Let me reword: If DMPC is "fullfilling a reqiured role" it's by definition stealing spotlight from PCs.


While I generally agree with what you've been saying, I'm not so sure about this part. If the players all have particular characters they want to play, but those characters together create a party with a glaring omission that makes it difficult for the game to run smoothly, I think that adding an NPC to the party (even if only as a hireling) is less of an imposition than making them change the way they want to play their characters.

[genesaika]

In my group of 3 players we tend to play with a healer, damage taker, and caster/damage dealer. On occasion someone doesn't want to play something so the dm will play it.

When is it necessary? That depends on the group and the dm. Some dms just can't do it, some parties won't allow it.

In the campaign I'm running right now my players are about to meet a bronze dragon in human form who is watching a city that is about to be destroyed by demons. She will accompany the party for a while mostly to give some roleplay or advice. It's a plot element that I need to further my story.

[Talya]

Let me reword: If DMPC is "fullfilling a reqiured role" it's by definition stealing spotlight from PCs.

Obviously you want NPCs as part of the story, but they (IMHO) shoudn't be part of the party. So it's ok for your pirate PC to have a favored soul GF but no bringing her on adventures (unless she can show us her PC badge).

Why? Because either she's competent and there are metagamy reasons not to (she will steal spotlight) or she isn't and there is IC reason to not do it (don't want to endanger her, do ya?).

I don't think a favored soul healer (with spells specifically chosen for that role) and non-damaging ineffectual melee combatant (no matter how durable) is ever going to steal the spotlight. Think of her as an intelligent wand with breasts. (Okay, so she's a very versatile wand that can cast a whole lot of different healing/cure/restoration/resurrection spells, but she's still single-purposed.)

[Tim Proctor]

1) When there is a rotational DMship, meaning that different players DM for adventure series, and everyone has a PC. That doesn't mean the DM should make the adventures that they are DMing focused and catered to their PC.

2) When people want a BBEG to start off in the party, and create that type of relationship between a BBEG and the players. This is the only time I suggest that a DMPC should be a versatile spellcaster and/or druid. You can't just say they're a BBEG so DMPC is the closest.

3) When the group is missing an aspect that is really helpful, like a scout, a healer, a tank, etc. Can happen because a player leaves the group, or they are just a small group, etc.

4) When your group of players are really bad at this game and only show up to drink your beer and eat your chips. When that happens just make their lives as miserable as possible, but if they bring beer and snacks then don't do this.

[Melayl]

When a specific role is needed for the party to succeed, yet nobody in the party is playing that role.

It's difficult to separate DMNCP from simple NPCs. The simplest definition of DMNPC is "NPC that adventures with the party."

I have a pirate-themed game where the party has a ship, but don't have nearly enough PC crew to run it. I needed to create crew with certain skills and qualities. Most of them are Expert 2/Swashbuckler 1-3 and the party is actually level 8, so I'm not sure most of them count, even though much of the time they DO adventure with the party. They're clearly cannon-fodder.

However, they have absolutely nobody playing a healer/divine caster. As one of the crew (and because it fit with a temple visit they made), they acquired a Favored Soul for their crew. She's focused primarily on healing and restoration spells, along with a few bits of utility that they lack. Her deity's favored weapon is a whip, so she's only ever going to be in a support role in melee, too. Lastly, they're on a 40 point buy. Since I designed her by PC rules, she's got unfocused base ability scores of 14/14/14/14/14/16. I ensured the party is rarely going to need to protect her, that she can hold her own in any situation they bring her on, but she will never ever overshadow them. She'd be boring as hell to play as a PC, but she's a perfect DMNPC, because she fills a missing role, she's no burden to the party, and she'll never, ever grab the spotlight.


A DMPC is an NPC that would be a PC if he wasn't an NPC. He can be bad or good, depending on the DM.


In my group of 3 players we tend to play with a healer, damage taker, and caster/damage dealer. On occasion someone doesn't want to play something so the dm will play it.

When is it necessary? That depends on the group and the dm. Some dms just can't do it, some parties won't allow it.

In the campaign I'm running right now my players are about to meet a bronze dragon in human form who is watching a city that is about to be destroyed by demons. She will accompany the party for a while mostly to give some roleplay or advice. It's a plot element that I need to further my story.

These posts pretty much sum up my opinion on the matter.

[nedz]

1) When there is a rotational DMship, meaning that different players DM for adventure series, and everyone has a PC. That doesn't mean the DM should make the adventures that they are DMing focused and catered to their PC.
In one game I DM/Play in we have rotating DMs. The DM's character goes off and does something else for the duration; so a DMPC is not required here.


2) When people want a BBEG to start off in the party, and create that type of relationship between a BBEG and the players. This is the only time I suggest that a DMPC should be a versatile spellcaster and/or druid. You can't just say they're a BBEG so DMPC is the closest.
This is not a DMPC, this is an antagonist.


3) When the group is missing an aspect that is really helpful, like a scout, a healer, a tank, etc. Can happen because a player leaves the group, or they are just a small group, etc.
Have a player run the NPC as a second character.

[Scumbaggery]

"Needed": never.

"Acceptable" sometimes. But it depends on your definition. I've seen people who literally define a DMPC done well as "not a DMPC, but an NPC that accompanies the party"

As the guy who made the latest one (as far as I know), I have to agree with this.

I've made the mistake of having a DMPC swoop in, do something cool, then made the party feel insignificant. As someone who puts a lot of emotion investment into a game, this made me feel like Tarrasque dung for the rest of that game, so much that my DMPC (a main quest giver) would only talk to them over the holo-communicator (setting was Star Wars.)

[Jormengand]

In one game I DM/Play in we have rotating DMs. The DM's character goes off and does something else for the duration; so a DMPC is not required here.


This is not a DMPC, this is an antagonist.


Have a player run the NPC as a second character.

Yes, and a party doesn't need a healer because they can heal by sleeping. Doesn't mean they aren't so useful that they may as well be considered necessary.

[lytokk]

Right now, I've got my players riding along with a caravan making a long trip across the continent. There are currently very few NPC's that are fully fleshed out, and only 2 that the party interacts with on a normal basis. 1 is the cleric/blacksmith of Morodin. The other is a warforged creation of his. The only reason the warforged was fully made was because once my adventure was done, someone else was going to take over and run, and I was going to step into the construct.

I've let the players know that if they feel they need the extra power to say so and he'll tag along with them, but its up to the players to make that decision, as its also up to the players to chose things like marching order and tactics. If it ever comes down to it, I have no problems killing my "character" if it saves one of the PCs.

I think this is how a DMPC should be played, if ever. I also have a tendancy to tailor treasure to the party, so the warforged is great as it really cant take advantage of a good percentage of loot.

[Tim Proctor]

In one game I DM/Play in we have rotating DMs. The DM's character goes off and does something else for the duration; so a DMPC is not required here.


This is not a DMPC, this is an antagonist.


Have a player run the NPC as a second character.
If the group is sufficiently large/powerful enough that they can complete an adventure without a PC generally speaks of other issues. Also the one person at a time gone is hard to continually explain storywise. There are corner cases to this situation where a DMPC wouldn't be needed, but those are corner cases.

The difference IMO between a DMPC and an NPC is perception, if you throw an antagonistic NPC into the group that is more powerful than the individual members of the group then players will have the perception that its a DMPC.

Trying to add terminology to the difference between an NPC/DMPC is really futile, its like me saying that your previous statement about a DMPC not necessary doesn't mean that the DM is also a player with a PC and therefore a DMPC even if off screen at the moment. I think this conversation is better suited to exploring the issue rather than to trying to negate someone's statement by terminology.

Your final statement is also one that is another corner case issue, you need to have a group of seasoned or at least good players in order for this to work. Someone that can roleplay a PC and an NPC, and that means that they generally lose out on a number of issues related to the relationship between PCs and NPCs.

The point is that DMPCs are needed in corner cases as it is, they are highly situational, and even those situations have corner cases. The What-If/In-This-Case game can be played forever but there are times when a DM should have a DMPC but as a general rule they aren't needed (as I've said a number of times on the other related threads).

[Red Fel]

To the opening question: Never.

Sorry, I meant to say: Never.

Others have already pointed it out, but at no point is a DMPC needed. Helpful, perhaps, maybe even appreciated. There is certainly a fine line between a friendly and recurring merchant, innkeeper, noble or healer as an NPC, and as a DMPC, but it is a line. If that character travels with the party, they may be an NPC or a DMPC, for example; but if they fight alongside the party, and do so effectively, that's a DMPC.

As to the issue of "holes" in the party, I agree with the above posters that this is something that can be addressed by smart players, using a combination of potions, scrolls, wands, and downtime for a missing healer; smart RPing for a missing face; careful maneuvering for a missing tank; and so forth.

It can also be addressed by smart DMing. If I find that my players all want to play light-armored in-your-face DPS machines, I know they won't want a high magic campaign, and I know they'll need places they can rest and recover. I'll make potions readily available, "save points" and other safe rest stops located every few encounters, and otherwise shape the game accordingly, because the players' build choices are often an indicator of the type of game they intend to play. If they're missing a typical role, I will ask the players to confer on that issue before the campaign starts; if one of them decides to reroll accordingly, fine. If not, it seems clear that everyone is playing what they want to play. Rolling a DMPC in that situation is tantamount to saying to the players, "I'm glad you all picked what you wanted to play, but you chose badly, so I'm going to have to tag along to clean up your mess." The players may resent you for doing so, or may take advantage unnecessarily; either way, it's far from ideal, when all you had to do as DM was simply restructure the campaign so it works around their builds.

Or I guess you could just kill the crap out of them. That'd sure teach them to play what they wanted, instead of what they were supposed to play, right?

[Psyren]

Maybe if the PCs are already deep in an adventure, and one of the players doesn't show up for a session. Then a fellow wandering adventurer could happen by and help out briefly (i.e., for the session when the party is short one PC). This is much easier than trying to re-structure a campaign, on the fly, that's already been power-matched to the regular size party.

This is pretty much the only circumstance in which either of my DMs uses one, and it works quite well for us.

[nedz]

If the group is sufficiently large/powerful enough that they can complete an adventure without a PC generally speaks of other issues. Also the one person at a time gone is hard to continually explain storywise.

The campaign in question was designed to allow rotating DMs without any story issues, and the party is of a standard size. If you are going to run with rotating DMs than you can and should plan for that when you set up the game.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Never. If the party is lacking a key role, then you give them opportunities to befriend an NPC who can fill that role and gain that NPC as a loyal follower/cohort/hireling, controlled by one of the players. The DM should never retain control of semipermanent party members, put them in the hands of a player and they're sure to not hog the spotlight or turn the party into sidekicks as nearly every DMPC ends up doing.

[mindwarper10]

never required, but can be a fun addition or story plot.
I have played in groups that severely lacked in a department (usually cleric), sometimes it's by player design, "I want the challenge", "My character is incapable of taking care of himself, let alone others, and is not social enough to be willing to find a cleric outside of going to the local church" for roleplaying purposes", The dm does not have to rebuilt the encounters as long as the players can play their characters competently (with regards to roleplaying, competence includes playing dumb or clumsy when it can be inconvenient, taking whatever damage they could have avoided and keep going....like my minotaur taking tips from the party rogue....how many times did he get hurt? lol...we never had a cleric in that party...not once...not even with out incompetent wizard...talk about a horribly rolled character and a....mentally challenged player...) There is really no such thing as "the big 5" or tier 1 classes...because if a fighter trips a wizard he's usually fairly screwed, with luck maybe he wont die and can escape...but competent character build matters WAY more than class... Nobody should play a class just to fill a role...no role is required. Play a full fighter group or a full wizard, it's possible any way you look at it from any level, if a bit complicated

[rweird]

DMPC and NPC have confusing definitions, and depending on the definition, seeing as all NPCs are played by the DM, and a DMPC is a dungeon master's player character/dungeon master played character. I never ran what I consider DMPCs, I usually have NPCs on the PCs team be several levels lower, trying to make sure the PCs keep the spotlight (That most of my campaigns are set away from civilization helps).

The closest I've come probably is when there is an NPC the party needs to complete a question (usually protect him for one reason or another), often a diplomat. These NPCs usually are significantly weaker than the party (usually a low level aristocrat). They'll often get credit for something (getting help to fight off the invasion), if the PCs protect them so the reach the destination, and can do it (which usually is "the diplomat goes off to present the plea for help, you'll be here a bit, is there anything you want to do (sell loot, buy stuff, get healing,), or can we skip forwards till the result."

You never need DMPCs, and I don't think that a NPC that goes with the party as another player is justified (if the PCs feel like they need more support and hire someone, thats okay), though and NPC that can significantly change the party's ability to solve problems should be plot relevant (so a group of commoners is okay, a 20th level wizard, not so much).

[Jeff the Green]

Think of her as an intelligent wand with breasts.

:smallconfused: I'm getting the very curious image of a slender piece of wood complaining that her eyes are up here, dammit.

More on topic, there's a continuum from NPC to DMPC. The archetypal NPC has a relationship with the party that is entirely incidental or plot driven. Think the king that gives you quests, the shopkeeper, and the priest who patches you up when you come back to the temple in town. The archetypal DMPC is played exactly like a PC would be, with equal "screen time" and contributions to solving challenges. In between are enemies, villains, the silent psywar and buxom wand.

Anything on this scale can go horribly wrong, though it tends to be NPCs being flat and DMPCs being excessively competent, prescient, or an inexplicably insistent princess (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButThouMust).

I've had to run NPCs as essentially DMPCs for a while, and I don't like it. I'm running EtCR, and the party wants Ashlyn and Ireena to tag along. Smart IC, but difficult for me. I have a hard time remembering what character knows what sometimes, and I don't want to use the NPCs as railroad tracks (though EtCR pretty much has a railroad built into it). I've also had to take over four PCs whose players dropped out until I could kill them off.

So, yeah, it's acceptable. It's necessary sometimes, like when plot or PCs require a formerly NPC to take an exceptionally active role. But it's best to avoid it if possible because they're temptations for bad DMing.

[Talya]

Never. If the party is lacking a key role, then you give them opportunities to befriend an NPC who can fill that role and gain that NPC as a loyal follower/cohort/hireling, controlled by one of the players. The DM should never retain control of semipermanent party members, put them in the hands of a player and they're sure to not hog the spotlight or turn the party into sidekicks as nearly every DMPC ends up doing.

Cohorts are not controlled by players. They are NPCs. They may owe allegiance to the player, but the player does not get to dictate exactly what they do or say. The DM speaks for them, the DM acts for them. That action is likely obeying whatever the PC asks them to do, but they are autonomous characters. They are not telepathically linked to their PC in some way that lets the player control them like a puppet.

Likewise, Animal Companions are also NPCs. As a druid/ranger, you gain certain abilities to train them to do as you want, but for the most part, they act as the DM wants them to act, you don't run them tactically as an extension of your character.

Which actually means, Cohorts/Animal Companions/Familiars/Wild Cohorts are basically DMNPCs, although they are features attached to PC characters.

I think the Red Fel made an interesting definition where it becomes unacceptable: "If they fight alongside the party and are effective." Effective is relative to the party, of course. If your party contains a single-classed monk, you probably shouldn't even have an NPC Warrior of similar level meleeing alongside them. If they have some level of system mastery and are generally quite good, a single class wielding a whip is unlikely to ever look effective.

Another thing is it depends on the setting setting: if you're the senior crew aboard a pirate ship, you need an entire crew full of recurring NPCs who can "fight effectively", much of the time adventuring with you on your ship. Relative to your average enemy crews, anyway. They are still not as good as the party, and the DM likely abstracts combat for the low level crews for their own sanity anyway, letting the PC party deal with the bigger threats (No, no i'm not speaking from experience).

I used a pirate ship crew as an example, but other similar ones would be a campaign set in a mercenary company, with entire armies behind them. You do need to flesh out the armies, and a few of them might even begin to approach the players in skill, but not quite get there. The players are the stars.

[Hecuba]

Needed: Never.

Useful:

DM duties are rotated or a player is absent, leaving a PC otherwise unplayed.
OR
When the level of system mastery at the table makes a NPC filling a role more palatable than going without (ex.: healer in a particularly low op group)

AND

There is a compelling reason for the DM to run the character rather than rotating it through the group (ex.: no one wants to play the healer).


I am firmly of the opinion that, to do this well, you should very well established character behaviors (ideally written down).
It requires, at minimum, the same level of restraint as playing a published adventure you have effectively memorized.

[Amphetryon]

Never. If the party is lacking a key role, then you give them opportunities to befriend an NPC who can fill that role and gain that NPC as a loyal follower/cohort/hireling, controlled by one of the players. The DM should never retain control of semipermanent party members, put them in the hands of a player and they're sure to not hog the spotlight or turn the party into sidekicks as nearly every DMPC ends up doing.

My reading of this indicates that a group that asks the DM to make and play a party member in order to fill a role they feel is lacking is Doing It Wrong.

[Red Fel]

Cohorts are not controlled by players. They are NPCs. They may owe allegiance to the player, but the player does not get to dictate exactly what they do or say. The DM speaks for them, the DM acts for them. That action is likely obeying whatever the PC asks them to do, but they are autonomous characters. They are not telepathically linked to their PC in some way that lets the player control them like a puppet.

Likewise, Animal Companions are also NPCs. As a druid/ranger, you gain certain abilities to train them to do as you want, but for the most part, they act as the DM wants them to act, you don't run them tactically as an extension of your character.

Which actually means, Cohorts/Animal Companions/Familiars/Wild Cohorts are basically DMNPCs, although they are features attached to PC characters.

I think the Red Fel made an interesting definition where it becomes unacceptable: "If they fight alongside the party and are effective." Effective is relative to the party, of course. If your party contains a single-classed monk, you probably shouldn't even have an NPC Warrior of similar level meleeing alongside them. If they have some level of system mastery and are generally quite good, a single class wielding a whip is unlikely to ever look effective.

Another thing is it depends on the setting setting: if you're the senior crew aboard a pirate ship, you need an entire crew full of recurring NPCs who can "fight effectively", much of the time adventuring with you on your ship. Relative to your average enemy crews, anyway. They are still not as good as the party, and the DM likely abstracts combat for the low level crews for their own sanity anyway, letting the PC party deal with the bigger threats (No, no i'm not speaking from experience).

I used a pirate ship crew as an example, but other similar ones would be a campaign set in a mercenary company, with entire armies behind them. You do need to flesh out the armies, and a few of them might even begin to approach the players in skill, but not quite get there. The players are the stars.

I was in a campaign where we had a gnomish steam-powered ship. It required multiple crew to operate. Rather than have the players make the necessary checks, our gnome managed to acquire some Permanence'd Unseen Servants to make constant Take 10 operations of the controls (which he reconfigured into, essentially, some treadmills and levers to be pulled). We controlled them directly, or rather the gnome did; there was no need for the DM to operate them.

In another campaign, we had a Psion who had, through feats and psionics, obtained a Gray Render as a cohort/follower/thrall/minion/whatever. It was a long time ago; I forget the details. The Psion issued instructions and the Render followed them, with very few exceptions. The DM's control was limited to mechanics (i.e. rolling to see how well the instructions were followed) and occasionally mentioning that the Render could not or would not do what was instructed. Again, mostly player-operated, very little DM participation.

The DM can abstract the participation of NPCs in mass-combats, such as army vs. army or crew vs. crew. That's expected and appreciated. But if the combat is your party vs. an enemy, or a group of enemies, that's something the players can handle. And even if the DM can roll dice for cohorts and such, the players should still at least nominally exert control; these minions are not entirely independent creatures.

And when I say "if they fight alongside the party and are effective," I don't mean relative to the party. If the DM gives us an NPC swordsman who is able to hold his own against monsters of an appropriate CR for the rest of the party, that NPC has character levels. It has character levels!

Character levels are the hallmark of the PCs, and the occasional Big Bad. They are a sign that a given NPC or creature is larger than life, heroic, destined for great things.

And when you give an NPC character levels, you are saying, "Look at Steve! Steve isn't just a mercenary hireling - he's plot-relevant! He's important too!"

And I take issue with that. The players are supposed to feel like epic heroes, they're supposed to feel like they're special. If everyone is special, then nobody is.

[John Longarrow]

For myself, and from experience, the biggest difference between a DMPC and an NCP is their role in the party. If they advise party, make suggestions to the party, and converse with the party, they are NPCs. If they can make decisions for the party or are part of deciding what the party does, they are DMPCs.

I've rarely seen DMPCs work well, and only when they were brought in by the party in character because the characters wanted to include said individual. This is a rather rare situation, but when it occurs it generally works very very well. It also means the players are playing their characters well and the story has developed such that it would in game make sense.

For the most part, DMPCs don't work well because they don't have an organic feel to why they are in the party. Often their presence feels like the DM is trying to narrate the story with the players along for the ride. It also takes a DM who is willing to spend the extra time and energy to really work out the DMPC in detail.

Over all, I'd say I've seen it happen once where it worked, and the DMPC was brought in because the party wanted them to be along. I've seen it happen several other times where the DM simply wanted a character to, and it never worked out well.

[jindra34]

My reading of this indicates that a group that asks the DM to make and play a party member in order to fill a role they feel is lacking is Doing It Wrong.

It kinda is. If the group is big enough that they could cover the role, and acknowledges they need something, well tough luck they made their choice. And for smaller groups defaulting to you playing it as opposed to asking if anyone would be interested in rolling and playing a second character is also stepping across the line, just not very far.

[Amphetryon]

It kinda is. If the group is big enough that they could cover the role, and acknowledges they need something, well tough luck they made their choice. And for smaller groups defaulting to you playing it as opposed to asking if anyone would be interested in rolling and playing a second character is also stepping across the line, just not very far.

So, WrongBadFun is a thing, and Players are using their imaginations for their enjoyment incorrectly. Got it.

[RochtheCrusher]

I have run into a couple situations where it made sense to have the current Patron come with the party... in the first case, it was a wizard who needed to cast a spell to shield them (important because, for story reasons, that protection had to fail) and in the second case, this guy needs extra muscle to rescue his wife, but there's no way in hell he's staying home and waiting for word.

In both cases, I've stacked the deck against the "DMPC" and have held them in reserve in combat (or, in the latter case, given him radically different priorities than the PCs have, like running past the guards to tend to his love quicker). Though these characters did have PC levels and definite motivations, they weren't there to do the party's job... in fact, there were ways in which they were more of an escort quest.

I do think that leaving agency firmly in the hands of the players and staying out of their zone of awesome is very important, but I'm not sure that DMPCs always infringe on those things.

[Blackjackg]

It seems to me there's a big difference that ought to be acknowledged between an NPC specifically requested by the players or recruited by the player characters in order to fill out the group and a DMPC inserted into the group by the DM for her own enjoyment.

Which is not to say that the former is always good (though it could be) or even that the latter is always bad (though it usually is).

There are also different kinds of Non-PC party members with different levels of DM control. For example (based on my experiences as a DM):

Characters and creatures "bought" by a PC through character options. These would include familiars, animal companions, followers and cohorts. As a DM, I would allow the player to control these characters almost of the time, but retain a veto for when the player says they do something I don't think they would do. I've found this kind of power balance is pretty organic and rarely feels weird... a player will say what his familiar is doing sometimes, and other times ask me what his familiar is doing.

Hirelings (I use this as the default term even though not all of them are technically "hired") are characters deliberately recruited in-game by the player characters to be members of their party. I'll usually retain control of these characters unless I get bogged down in combat, then I might ask one of the players to take over. I don't worry too much about making the characters too awesome because they're usually a couple levels below the party and the PCs can just ditch them if they become annoying.

There are also allies who may join the group temporarily (and here "temporary" is the key word) as part of the story of a particular quest. Sometimes they're less powerful than the characters, sometimes they're about even, every now and then they might even be more powerful. Sometimes they're enemies in disguise, waiting for the moment to betray. This is iffy territory, because these allies definitely have the potential to take the spotlight away from the PCs, but if it's handled carefully and doesn't drag on into multiple quests at a time, I think it can work.

None of these types of characters, in my mind, are DMPCs. A DMPC, to paraphrase what I said recently in another thread, is a character in whose success the DM is as invested as the players are in their characters'. That means they're present through most or all of the story, and the DM will try to arrange things to make her character stand out in the same way that the player characters try to make their characters stand out.

[Eulalios]

when all you had to do as DM was simply restructure the campaign so it works around their builds.

No.

Not this.

Not quite, anyway.

How 'bout this?

when all they had to do as players was seek a place in the world to suit their builds.

A good DM should support that.

A good DM should not abandon a well-thought-out story simply because the players don't want to be in it. That story should run in the background, now, and it should interact with the story the players want to be in. Then you get something truly complex and synergistic.

The other two approaches (RAILS + locomotive DMPC) or (players lead me by the nose) are suboptimal.

[Red Fel]

No.

Not this.

Not quite, anyway.

How 'bout this?

when all they had to do as players was seek a place in the world to suit their builds.

A good DM should support that.

A good DM should not abandon a well-thought-out story simply because the players don't want to be in it. That story should run in the background, now, and it should interact with the story the players want to be in. Then you get something truly complex and synergistic.

The other two approaches (RAILS + locomotive DMPC) or (players lead me by the nose) are suboptimal.

Valid rephrasing.

Yes. I realize I misspoke. I didn't mean that the DM should design the entire campaign around the players' builds; rather, as you put it, the DM should assemble the world in such a way that the players can find a niche in it. If the players are combat-oriented, the world should contain options for them to pursue; if they lack a healer, they should be able to find creative recovery solutions.

I didn't mean that the DM should bend over backwards to make things easy for them.

But by the same token, I also meant that the DM should not be using a DMPC to provide the solutions.

[Talya]

And when I say "if they fight alongside the party and are effective," I don't mean relative to the party. If the DM gives us an NPC swordsman who is able to hold his own against monsters of an appropriate CR for the rest of the party, that NPC has character levels. It has character levels!

Character levels are the hallmark of the PCs, and the occasional Big Bad. They are a sign that a given NPC or creature is larger than life, heroic, destined for great things.

And when you give an NPC character levels, you are saying, "Look at Steve! Steve isn't just a mercenary hireling - he's plot-relevant! He's important too!"

And I take issue with that. The players are supposed to feel like epic heroes, they're supposed to feel like they're special. If everyone is special, then nobody is.

I highly disagree here. I generally believe characters using solely NPC classes should only be the most disposable, irrelevant "extras" among the NPCs in any campaign. Anybody of any remote significance should probably have at least partial character levels, and anybody who is a peer to the party should be entirely character levels.

For characters travelling along with the party, I instead use one or more of three ways to differentiate them from the PCs: (1) Level relative to the PCs. Most of the pirate crew was 3-5 levels lower than a level 8 party. (And had a couple expert levels in there too, but I used Swashbuckler as the default pirate thug chassis). (2) Role relative to the PCs. In a party with very little healing (and ultimately, very little magical power at all), the favored soul actually filled a niche they needed, so they sought out an NPC priest. However, I specifically tailored her to only be effective in one very unglamorous role. (3) Optimization relative to the PCs. Part of this relates to my "Tier 5 are the new NPC classes" idea. They had a goliath monk as ships cook for a while, just because I found the idea funny. I'm not sure he ever threw a punch, so it's possible they never knew he was a monk, but it wouldn't matter, because, hey, monk -- the commoner that takes UMD as a class skill is more powerful. The difference between a core warrior and a core barbarian is no wider than the difference between an unoptimized swashbuckler and a highly optimized warblade. Class choice is not what gives you the spotlight.

On using unseen servants to crew a ship: Yes, it's possible. Doesn't mean it gives the players the feel of being the senior officers of a pirate ship. It's no fun being the bosun when you've got nobody to make kiss the gunner's daughter.

edit: One last thing.
"Look at Steve! Steve isn't just a mercenary hireling - he's plot-relevant! "

I try to make just about everything that's ever named in my games plot-relevant. Plots can be complicated things! Lots of very minor characters in stories may be in them for significant lengths of time, and be entirely plot relevant.


(Advantage in a pirate game: The captain and senior officers are all PCs. On the away mission into the dungeon, they decide who to bring. You know which NPCs they actually like and which they dislike when they pick and choose which ones to leave to guard the ship. There's usually a disposable sailor or two taking point to suffer the inevitable trap death. They'll bring the healer and stick her in the middle where she's safe...and leave their strongest and most trusted NPCs on the ship along with the PCs of the players who haven't shown up lately so that they don't get stranded while they're inside.)

[Averis Vol]

Ehh, I have a modified way of using leadership which just basically allows the party, with a good enough reason, to pluck any NPC, no matter what I have statted them as, to follow them as a cohort. Now, they have to convince the person with some sort of logic to follow them (so a group of level six party members probably can't walk up to the worlds greatest warrior and say "I choose him", but they might be able to get the guard captain (warrior 4) to follow them with sufficient reason, Or in the case of the hunter Saul (Ranger 2/ binder 4) because they are advancing a cause relevant to him) and the NPC's can generally only do so much. Most of the time they even forgot that saul was there, so he realistically spent more time wandering around on his own then with the group.

Was he played by me: Yes.
Was he a DMPC: no. (Below average stats, lower level then the party, not fully optimised, etc, etc. and most importantly, quiet and grumpy.)

[Talya]

I actually believe cohorts should be the exception to the idea of DMNPCs never even once getting the spotlight. A cohort is an extension of sorts of the character that took Leadership. They want that cohort to be effective, and it makes them feel good when the cohort does something badass every once in a while. The fact that she's two levels lower than everybody else covers the power difference enough that I don't think she needs to be built suboptimally.

[Palanan]

Just a couple of comments here:


Originally Posted by Talya
I want the NPCs to be as alive and as much a part of the story as mine is. They may not be in a starring role...but they are still every bit as much a part of the story.

First, I agree with this sentiment completely. Some of my best roleplaying experiences, as both player and DM, have been running or interacting with other people in the campaign world. My first DM in 3.5 was brilliant at this, and I did my best to follow his example.

However....


Originally Posted by Talya
Cohorts are not controlled by players. They are NPCs. They may owe allegiance to the player, but the player does not get to dictate exactly what they do or say. The DM speaks for them, the DM acts for them.

Where do you find this in the rules?

I'm looking at the 3.5 DMG, p. 106, under "Attracting Cohorts," fifth sentence: "A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under that player's control...." (Emphasis mine.) I don't see anything else contradicting this statement, which to me indicates that the player runs the cohort as another PC.

That's how it's been done in all the campaigns I've been in. The DM runs the followers, if any, but the player runs the cohort as a wingman to the main PC.

[bassic_camel]

Where do you find this in the rules?

I'm looking at the 3.5 DMG, p. 106, under "Attracting Cohorts," fifth sentence: "A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under that player's control...." (Emphasis mine.) I don't see anything else contradicting this statement, which to me indicates that the player runs the cohort as another PC.

That's how it's been done in all the campaigns I've been in. The DM runs the followers, if any, but the player runs the cohort as a wingman to the main PC.

This is also a 3.5/Pathfinder edition argument. In the Core Rulebook for Pathfinder it states that the cohort is an NPC, and elsewhere it states that NPCs are under the GM's control, so the argument is not universal. I, personally, have seen this run either way, and the conclusion one can draw is hardly irrefutable or immutable. IMO, of course.

[Talothorn]

I think a lot of the problem comes from how these terms are defined. To me, a DMPC is specifically a Dungeon Master's Player Character. It us a character the DM makes and inserts into the story to showcase how awesome he is. He is more important to the story than the PCs are. He doesn't even need to be a party member. Gandalf is a DMPC. He fights the epic fights. He saves the day when all is lost. He faces off against the balrog solo and wins when everyone else is 4th level.

An NPC is a Non Player Character. They may be in the party, or not. They may have character classes, or just npc classes, or a unique build and prestige classes. (Lots of prestige classes require recruitment or sponsorship by a member of that class. This means there must be npcs of that prc somewhere. ) An npc might be a commoner, or a barkeep, a king, a villain, a rival, or a tutor. They can be higher level than thw party. Elminster us an NPC. He teaches and guides, but he never hogs the spotlight.

A DMNPC is a what? I have never heard that term. Dungeon Master Non Player Character? As opposed to what, exactly. I have never heard of a player non player character. It seems contradictory to me.

If your players lack a specific role, let them take leadership and get a cohort to fill that role. If they are too low level for that, drop in an npc, or let them gestalt. If there are plenty of players, and they are high enough for leadership, and nobody wants to fill that role or recruit a cohort,let them deal with it in a creative way. UMD is as good as a healer. Divine Migjt is as good as a melee.

[Tvtyrant]

When the party agrees they are is probably the best answer. I have run a healbot in some parties, and in others they run just find without any magical healers at all and without a devoted caster type.

Edit: So yeah, my suggestion is to ask the rest of the party. Majority rules.

[Cambrian]

I don't think the issue is as complicated as many make it out to be.

A NPC is a plot device. They're used to move the story along or flesh out the world.

When a NPC with (in) the party no longer serves that purpose they have crossed into the territory of a DMPC.

As to when it is "needed" (better to say desirable) is more a matter of playgroup preference. I'd stand closer to the never end of the spectrum.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm looking at the 3.5 DMG, p. 106, under "Attracting Cohorts," fifth sentence: "A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under that player's control...." (Emphasis mine.) I don't see anything else contradicting this statement, which to me indicates that the player runs the cohort as another PC. (Emphasis in red added.)
The contradiction is back on page 104, right at the beginning of the Cohort discussion:
Cohorts
Cohorts are loyal servants who follow a particular character or sometimes a group of characters. (NPC adventurers can have cohorts, too.) They are hired by or seek out a PC or PCs, and they work out a deal agreeable to both parties so that the NPC works for the characters.
Then, of course, you note that the title of the chapter is NONPLAYER CHARACTERS, and it begins with:
EVERYONE IN THE WORLD
It’s your job to portray everyone in the world who isn’t a player character. You might be overlooking the importance of that "effectively" qualifiier; Cohorts are NPCs.

[georgie_leech]

I view it as an attachment issue. If the DM is attached to the NPC adventuring with the PC's and would be upset to see it die, it's probably a DMPC. If the DM is tempted to fudge rolls or arbitrarily declare success to ensure the NPC does something important or doesn't die or whatever, it is almost definitely a DMPC. If the DM ever feels pride in the accomplishments of the NPC beyond "It's made the game more interesting for my players and they enjoy it," it is a DMPC.

I've used a character in the manner of the DMPC for the first few sessions of a campaign once. I built it as a sagely father figure, "training" the PC's in the art of adventuring (they also happened to be new players, and I asked before hand if they'd prefer the "tutorial" such it was delivered via voice over or by NPC). This necessitated the guy be of a higher level, as he was the experienced hero. However, from the start I planned on him dying, and at the end of the third session had him killed off by the BBEG, for several reasons:

1) His role had been accomplished; the PC's felt comfortable enough with the mechanics to be able to act without his/my prompting.

2) His death served to illustrate that the BBEG was considerably more powerful than they were at the time, as well as provided the motive to be upset at this particular BBEG.

3) Him being a higher level meant that keeping him around ran the risk of either stealing the spotlight due to being mechanically stronger, or the PC's using him as a crutch to get themselves out of nasty situations.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
*stuff*

For me the key phrase is "under the player's control," which I take to mean "not run by the DM, but rather the player." To me, the wording is simple and clear.

Obviously this could be argued into the dirt, which I really don't care to. Just as obviously it's a DM call. In my own experience, as I've said, the cohorts have been run by the players and it's worked out just fine. We even, dare I say, had fun with it.

I always get the feeling, in the endlessly recurring threads on this topic, that a lot of people want DMPCs to be a universally miserable experience, in order to justify their own intense dislike of the concept. In my experience, in every campaign I've been involved with, it's been completely the opposite: the DMPCs (and, horreurs, interesting NPCs) were enjoyed and appreciated by players and DMs alike. That's just how it was, over ten years of gaming.


Originally Posted by Talothorn
To me, a DMPC is specifically a Dungeon Master's Player Character. It us [sic] a character the DM makes and inserts into the story to showcase how awesome he is.

This seems to be the root of most of the Playground's negativity towards the idea, and I see this as ultimately an issue of player maturity, using "player" in the broader sense of everyone participating in the game.

My first 3.5 game was with professionals in their twenties and thirties; we had a whole crowd of mathematicians, grad students, NGO activists, etc., and our DM was a NASA engineer with a tremendous enthusiasm for creating quirky, enjoyable characters. From what I can tell from threads like this, most of the Playground would've hated him, because he created non-disposable NPCs and DMPCs, imbued them with personality and life, and gave us some great roleplaying along the way.

The behavior that most Playgrounders ascribe to DMPCs--or rather, the DMs who run them--seems to represent an entirely different demographic, mainly high school and college students. I will say no more on that, except that it hardly seems fair to relentlessly criticize a particular gaming tool when the real issues are with a subset of the people who make use of it.

[Segev]

Honestly, if it's a matter of needing the role filled, there are options that are better than a DMPC.

Hirelings are a thing, and at lower levels (when you need "a tank"), the pair of warriors you pay by the day can do the job adequately enough without being major decision-makers in the party. Even hiring a cleric to provide healing after combat can be affordable. These guys don't get loot; they're salaried.

If you absolutely, positively need another PC-like person, add another PC. Let one or more players bring in a second character. I'm not hugely fond of this practice, but it is largely preferable to a DMPC.

[Amphetryon]

Honestly, if it's a matter of needing the role filled, there are options that are better than a DMPC.

Hirelings are a thing, and at lower levels (when you need "a tank"), the pair of warriors you pay by the day can do the job adequately enough without being major decision-makers in the party. Even hiring a cleric to provide healing after combat can be affordable. These guys don't get loot; they're salaried.

If you absolutely, positively need another PC-like person, add another PC. Let one or more players bring in a second character. I'm not hugely fond of this practice, but it is largely preferable to a DMPC.

Who plays the hirelings? If it's the DM, that fits some of the definitions Playgrounders give/have given for DMPC. If it's one of the Players, that creates an unequal burden and amount of spotlight time on that particular Player. If it's a pass-around hireling whose decisions are made by a different Player every session, that's a gift to some of the Players and a chore to some others, as not everyone wants to juggle multiple Characters.

[Segev]

Hirelings typically don't get to act as fleshed-out characters. If they're DMPCs to some on these boards just by virtue of being controlled by the DM, I suppose so be it, but in my mind the distinction is that they don't get anything special. They actively get less than the PCs do. They might be NPC classes, or otherwise fairly generic. The only ones who are willing to put themselves in danger are the warrior-types; others will hang back and demand some level of protection, because they're not being paid enough to provide their services AND be in danger.

If a second PC for a given character is the issue, yes, that can result in disproportionate spotlight. The solution here is to be careful about that, or to allow everybody a second PC. It's easier to moderate attention-to-a-player than it is to keep a DM's ego out of a full-fledged party member whose stake in the game is the same as that of the PCs.

[SiuiS]

"Needed": never.

"Acceptable" sometimes. But it depends on your definition. I've seen people who literally define a DMPC done well as "not a DMPC, but an NPC that accompanies the party"

Basically. I figure a character who may as well be a PC, but who is run by the DM, is a DMPC. But not everyone feels that way.

My last "DMPC" was a wizard who was driving the plot – he hired the party to accompany him – but was, uh, not exactly favored in any way. The party positioned him as meat wall as often as not. The players from that game just considered said wizard my PC, and often forgot I was DM.



I think a lot of the problem comes from how these terms are defined. To me, a DMPC is specifically a Dungeon Master's Player Character. It is a character the DM makes

This is true.


and inserts into the story to showcase how awesome he is. He is more important to the story than the PCs are. He doesn't even need to be a party member. Gandalf is a DMPC. He fights the epic fights. He saves the day when all is lost. He faces off against the balrog solo and wins when everyone else is 4th level.

This is a value judgement that doesn't actually come into the definition at all. This is connotation. The above is decoration.

The idea can be separated from the execution. More, the idea should be separated from the execution. A DMPC is needed when there is need for a party member and not enough players, nor any willing to shoulder that burden.

[killem2]

When: For me, when I want to play but we have no other dm.

If you run things by the book, and you don't mind looking silly every once in a while talking to yourself, it's fine.

It's also a handful.



This is a value judgement that doesn't actually come into the definition at all. This is connotation. The above is decoration.

The idea can be separated from the execution. More, the idea should be separated from the execution. A DMPC is needed when there is need for a party member and not enough players, nor any willing to shoulder that burden.

Aptly put. Too many people lump it all together.

It's also very difficult to get real advice and help on these boards with out the public jumping down your throat accusing you have being the worst DM ever...

[TuggyNE]

For me the key phrase is "under the player's control," which I take to mean "not run by the DM, but rather the player." To me, the wording is simple and clear.

Well, if a DMPC is a PC run by the DM, then a cohort is an NPC run by a player.

It's not that complicated! :smalltongue:

[137beth]

Just make a DMPC with a low will save. Now, make a modified version of a Dungeon Ring (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/magicItems/rings.html#_dungeon-ring), except that instead of having a continuous Status it has a continuous Dominate Person.
There, now you have a DMPC who is entirely under the control of the DM, except when it is Dominated by a PC, which is always.

EDIT: Ooh, or if you let epic spells get involved you have a better option. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/enslave.htm) If using the PF version of mind blank, make sure the DMPC has a low enough will save that +8 won't help him break out too often. If using the 3.5 version of mind blank...just add an extra +10 or something to the DC (and an extra caster) to gain the property "is not hampered by mind blank". :smallbiggrin:

[Phelix-Mu]

I think the fundamental questions here revolve around two points.

1.) Is a game that has a DMPC fun?
Answers:
Yes: Then the game is fun.

No: Then something needs to change. The DM should always be aware of what is or is not working, including DMPC/NPC/Plot Feature not working out as expected/intended.

2.) Are the PCs being challenged with a DMPC around?
Answers
Yes: Well, good, cause as DM, there is no excuse not to raise the metaphorical crap->fan to such a level that the PCs will literally grab onto anything that floats.

No: Consider removing the DMPC. Consider throwing more crap->fan. The tools a DM has to challenge a group are literally countless, DMPC notwithstanding.

Now, to the more narrow insinuation:
As DM, I am in control of the story. Some story features are going to be recurring themes, recurring characters, recurring bad guys, or recurring mindscrews. If one happens to buddy up to the characters or be my own PC, it is incumbent on me to keep the rest of the game in whack. Spotlight hogging by anyone is problematic. That said, there is plenty of spotlight to go around with the right crap->fan ratio, plus some nice plot twists and so forth. I can and do nerf/whack/mess around with my own pcs/npcs or whatever. People die. That's part of the DM schtick.

So, the onus is on the DM. But, as long as the DM has their ducks in a row, it's not difficult to let the players shine while still having an interesting character or npc show up from time to time or fill in a missing role. And if the DM doesn't have their ducks in a row, then there are likely to be a number of other symptoms, many just as problematic as the DMPC.

[Firechanter]

A DMPC may be needed when the party would be entirely too small otherwise, and/or lack a vital role. I call this application an "equalizer".

The DMPC should not overshadow any of the PCs. It should not take away anyone's spotlight, and the DM should definitely not start solving his own puzzles or otherwise demote the PCs to bystanders.

One suitable implementation of a DMPC in a 3.5 game is a Tank. It's a melee type that won't shine with extraordinary mental abilities, so the roleplaying, thinking and puzzling is left to the players. It's also a rather boring job that the players usually aren't too keen on. A Tank also normally doesn't deal much damage, leaving the players the opportunity to shine in that department.
However, if none of the players is a damage dealer, the DMPC may be forced to fill that role, too.

In general, it's better to get by without.
Of course, the real reason for most DMPCs seen in actual games is not that the party lacks a specific character, it's that one group member is always stuck with the DM job because he is the one who is most committed to the game, and nobody else is willing to do the job, but he also wants to _play_ once in a while.

So to all the players out there who complain about their DM putting a DMPC in the group, how about _you_ offer to conduct a game once in a while for your regular DM? Yes, you, not the person sitting left or right to you, _you_.

[Czin]

What's the Playground's opinion of a DMPC (or PCs for our rather large multi-DM group) that while competent enough to not be dead-weight, is generally at par with the PCs at most times or outright under par?

[molten_dragon]

We just got another thread where a player has a problem with a DMPC. What I want to ask is, do DMs ever really need a DMPC? I have only DM'd online, though I've played around a table for years. From what I've seen... sometimes the players need help, and then they find an NPC. A nice, reasonably fleshed out, reliable or unreliable NPC with motives of their own, who stays in town.

I get that sometimes the party is small, and another character to fill a certain role would be very useful, but... From the DM's perspective, is it so important to have a fourth or fifth character with your players? Can't you just hand out a couple of extra items and adjust the obstacles and encounters?

A DMPC is never necessary.

Sometimes an NPC might be necessary, but even that can usually be worked around somehow.

[johnbragg]

It's difficult to separate DMNCP from simple NPCs. The simplest definition of DMNPC is "NPC that adventures with the party."

I'd say the line between "an NPC that adventures with the party" (which can various justifications, see the rest of the thread) and a DMPC is that the DM is as attached to the DMPC as the players are to their PCs. When that happens, then your DMPC is going to start outshining PCs.


What's the Playground's opinion of a DMPC (or PCs for our rather large multi-DM group) that while competent enough to not be dead-weight, is generally at par with the PCs at most times or outright under par?

In a large party, it's going to be tough for the DMPC to be "at par" with the whole party. Under-par-but-useful-in-spots (low-optimization Healbot cleric, good skills/vanishes in combat rogue) is probably doable, more than that is risky.

I think a guideline is that a DMPC is dangerous if they're not at least a half-step behind the PCs in power. Stats aren't everything, but they're a lot. So if your "extra party member" has the same stat buy or the same number of high ability scores as a PC, they'll at least sometimes overshadow that PC.

I wouldn't say that NPCs can't adventure with the party, because I've seen it done without problems. The party was an adventuring party because they'd been hired by the same merchant house to explore different sites in the Sunken Lands for lost magic, and the company sent along a higher-level thief to supervise us and make sure some skill checks got made while we did the fighting. In another campaign, the 2 PCs decided that a 2-man band was a little light, so they went to a nearby tavern and picked up some fighters.

Also, while the magic mart is a common feature of D&D campaigns, is it so common now that it's assumed as the default? Because "just go buy Items XYZ and go" means that A) you're running with at least the WBL guidelines and B) buying a wand of cure light wounds is something that you can do with the same ease you buy a suit of plate mail.

[Czin]

I'd say the line between "an NPC that adventures with the party" (which can various justifications, see the rest of the thread) and a DMPC is that the DM is as attached to the DMPC as the players are to their PCs. When that happens, then your DMPC is going to start outshining PCs.



In a large party, it's going to be tough for the DMPC to be "at par" with the whole party. Under-par-but-useful-in-spots (low-optimization Healbot cleric, good skills/vanishes in combat rogue) is probably doable, more than that is risky.

I think a guideline is that a DMPC is dangerous if they're not at least a half-step behind the PCs in power. Stats aren't everything, but they're a lot. So if your "extra party member" has the same stat buy or the same number of high ability scores as a PC, they'll at least sometimes overshadow that PC.

I wouldn't say that NPCs can't adventure with the party, because I've seen it done without problems. The party was an adventuring party because they'd been hired by the same merchant house to explore different sites in the Sunken Lands for lost magic, and the company sent along a higher-level thief to supervise us and make sure some skill checks got made while we did the fighting. In another campaign, the 2 PCs decided that a 2-man band was a little light, so they went to a nearby tavern and picked up some fighters.

Also, while the magic mart is a common feature of D&D campaigns, is it so common now that it's assumed as the default? Because "just go buy Items XYZ and go" means that A) you're running with at least the WBL guidelines and B) buying a wand of cure light wounds is something that you can do with the same ease you buy a suit of plate mail.

I was asking since the me and the four Co-gms (with a playing card based ranking system) usually have one or two (as a whole, not on a per person basis) GMPCs in our twenty man group.

Right now the GMPCs are an archaeologist and a linguist. Of course, this is the party where a Cyborg Ninja who can judoflip ten thousand ton warmecha into the air and hack a man into hundreds of small pieces before he ever hits the ground is considered par the course.

[johnbragg]

I was asking since the me and the four Co-gms (with a playing card based ranking system) usually have one or two (as a whole, not on a per person basis) GMPCs in our twenty man group.

Right now the GMPCs are an archaeologist and a linguist. Of course, this is the party where a Cyborg Ninja who can judoflip ten thousand ton warmecha into the air and hack a man into hundreds of small pieces before he ever hits the ground is considered par the course.

Ok, unless your archaeologist is uncovering Artifacts of Elder Magic and your linguist speaks the worldshaping Words of Creation, that should be fine.

[nedz]

I was asking since the me and the four Co-gms (with a playing card based ranking system) usually have one or two (as a whole, not on a per person basis) GMPCs in our twenty man group.

Right now the GMPCs are an archaeologist and a linguist. Of course, this is the party where a Cyborg Ninja who can judoflip ten thousand ton warmecha into the air and hack a man into hundreds of small pieces before he ever hits the ground is considered par the course.

These just sound like NPCs, but:
Are these major protagonists in the plot ?
i.e. do they resolve plot issues ? This is not the same thing as providing information or even 'quests'.

[Renegade Paladin]

I was GMing a Pathfinder Society scenario once and the player split wound up with me running a table of 3 with no casters. The scenario was murdering them, so I brought in my own Society character to bail them out, and in my effort to not use my GM knowledge of the scenario took the worst trap in the dungeon directly to my face. :smalltongue:

[Czin]

These just sound like NPCs, but:
Are these major protagonists in the plot ?
i.e. do they resolve plot issues ? This is not the same thing as providing information or even 'quests'.

They're liasons to the governments of the world (a fantasy setting that came off a massive war with a Nazi Germany expy complete with magic enhanced Stukas and panzers some one thousand years ago) in the attempts to expand outwards and find allies in space after finding that the planar powers, heavily upset after the devastation caused in the World war, are planning to invade them and reset all their gains while it turns out the once thought to be benevolent precursor aliens are actually not entirely dead nor benevolent.

The two have so far primarily been advisors, negotiators, and snipers, as so far there's a fairly big pile of GMPCs who Leeroy jenkins'd into traps and got messily slaughtered/eaten/mind controlled/got a face full of alien wing wong/disappeared to never be seen again.

The most major thing they did was help set up a treaty with a large empire of Starfish aliens and through sheer luck destroy a factory for Precursor war machines while the normal PCs dived headlong into the mass of killbots and Tanar'ri fighting each other (the other three GMPCs got killed in this incident).

[BWR]

Is it a DMPC if the DM runs a character that is a longstanding member of the group, who helpes out and is fleshed out and fun to have along?
Is it a DMPC if said character sometimes helps the party in an otherwise untenable situation (e.g captured, sneaking past guards, coming up with suggestions if the players are stuck, etc.)
Is it a DMPC if the players are genuinely bummed when this character bites the dust?

Since people can never seem to agree on what 'DMPC' actually means it's hard to tell. i've been in groups where the DM literally had a PC. He didn't really control it, it was just there for the times when someone else would run an adventure, or just because. Said characters didn't overshadow the rest of us or automatically make all the right choices or were specially exempt from bad situations or given special treatment. Even in our worst murderhobo period the DMs didn't do this.

We've also had NPCs who would accompany the group and be vital members of the team and work independantly on common goals.

Most recently, running a solo campaign for a player, I've been running a party member. I try to not have the character overshadow the player, but if you make a character with personality and history they have a tendency to express that. Also, the player has told me she appreciates having a DM mouthpiece for the times she genuinely stuck. I try to let it be a matter of dice rolls or reminding of clues that were given earlier but sometimes it boils down to either giving a little nudge or letting the game stall and maybe fail.
Is this a DMPC?

[Amphetryon]

Is it a DMPC if the DM runs a character that is a longstanding member of the group, who helpes out and is fleshed out and fun to have along?
Is it a DMPC if said character sometimes helps the party in an otherwise untenable situation (e.g captured, sneaking past guards, coming up with suggestions if the players are stuck, etc.)
Is it a DMPC if the players are genuinely bummed when this character bites the dust?

Since people can never seem to agree on what 'DMPC' actually means it's hard to tell. i've been in groups where the DM literally had a PC. He didn't really control it, it was just there for the times when someone else would run an adventure, or just because. Said characters didn't overshadow the rest of us or automatically make all the right choices or were specially exempt from bad situations or given special treatment. Even in our worst murderhobo period the DMs didn't do this.

We've also had NPCs who would accompany the group and be vital members of the team and work independantly on common goals.

Most recently, running a solo campaign for a player, I've been running a party member. I try to not have the character overshadow the player, but if you make a character with personality and history they have a tendency to express that. Also, the player has told me she appreciates having a DM mouthpiece for the times she genuinely stuck. I try to let it be a matter of dice rolls or reminding of clues that were given earlier but sometimes it boils down to either giving a little nudge or letting the game stall and maybe fail.
Is this a DMPC?

From some responses - here and in other 'DMPC' threads - any time the DM controls a Character at all, for any reason, it's a DMPC. Combine that with the responses here that a DMPC is never needed. . . yeah.

[Firechanter]

Well, one acceptable reason to put up with DMPCs is when the group has some kind of DM rotation. When the players take turns at DMing, it may not always be possible or plausible to have individual characters dis- and reappear every third session.

In this case, however, the typical DMPC problems hardly show up, because all the PCs are made and progressed by the same rules. Even if one player used his shot at DMing to, for instance, twink his character with loads of specialized gear, the next player taking the post can easily Ctrl-Z on that. Since every player is aware of this, it normally doesn't even happen in the first place.

[Phelix-Mu]

I don't know. I feel like some of the rage/objections directed at DMPCs is just availabilty bias (I think that's what it's called).

I literally went through like a decade of 2e-3.0 where the DM always had a character, sometimes two. Likewise, when I DM'd, I had a character. We never played any other way. And almost all of my most memorable gaming experiences were thus. I literally never thought that it was bad, that it stole spotlight (teamwork means sharing the spotlight, and D&D is generally that kind of game), or that anything was wrong. Contrast that with the general sentiment.

Now, I also am thus affected by availability bias. But this leads me to believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. DMPCs work in some games. They don't work in others. Generalizing may just be impossible.

But, far be it from me to stand in the way of the debate. It is the internet, after all, and good debate is half the fun of forums.