Players think I favour DM Character. Help?

[Icalasari]

It's a PTA campaign. At least one player has made comments saying, "Well, of course the DM Character never dies" (They had encouraged me to create a player to use alongside them)

Thing is, I give my character more rolls than anybody else (as in, where I would go, "You know what? You're reasonably strong/smart enough, I'll just let that slide" for them, I'd make my character roll for it), he just gets stupid lucky where it counts (even rolling a nat one to catch Raikou, when all I intended was to put him in the ball to disable him for a second and draw fire for a round or two)

Any advice?

[Airk]

It's a PTA campaign. At least one player has made comments saying, "Well, of course the DM Character never dies" (They had encouraged me to create a player to use alongside them)

Thing is, I give my character more rolls than anybody else (as in, where I would go, "You know what? You're reasonably strong/smart enough, I'll just let that slide" for them, I'd make my character roll for it), he just gets stupid lucky where it counts (even rolling a nat one to catch Raikou, when all I intended was to put him in the ball to disable him for a second and draw fire for a round or two)

Any advice?

Roll in the open so they can see you're not fudging?

[Icalasari]

Roll in the open so they can see you're not fudging?

I do roll in the open

Do I just have to deal with paranoid players?

[MonochromeTiger]

I do roll in the open

Do I just have to deal with paranoid players?

brief word of advice, if you're having issues with your players do NOT turn it into a "them versus me" situation. when you get to that stage it just devolves into slowly proving them right.

I assume they've seen the character sheet? can see clearly that the character is not at some unfair level of advantage over theirs? that could go a long way towards allaying any suspicions of DM favoritism. if you've already done that and you are, as you have pointed out, already rolling in the open then you may want to check that they aren't just messing with you on the DMPC comments. and if it turns out they're serious...explain to them that there's really not much more you can do to prove you aren't cheating for your character and that they were the ones that convinced you to make one if they want the character gone.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I assume they've seen the character sheet? can see clearly that the character is not at some unfair level of advantage over theirs? that could go a long way towards allaying any suspicions of DM favoritism. if you've already done that and you are, as you have pointed out, already rolling in the open then you may want to check that they aren't just messing with you on the DMPC comments. and if it turns out they're serious...explain to them that there's really not much more you can do to prove you aren't cheating for your character and that they were the ones that convinced you to make one if they want the character gone.
Be sure not to be passive aggressive while doing so. Also offer to withdraw the character if it's bothering people.

[Craft (Cheese)]

If they do want the DMPC gone, be sure to have them exit by getting horribly killed. Preferably in whatever way you think the players would find most hilarious.

[RustyArmor]

DMPCing often has a bad rap. So if said dmpc does good, not mattering if they are built really well, just lucky, or fudge rolls, the PCs will automatically feel that it is getting special treatment.
Have said dmpc just die a heroic death helping the party. Or (if they are average type party) have the dmpc die a bloody horrible death so the PCs can dance around the corpse.

[Icalasari]

brief word of advice, if you're having issues with your players do NOT turn it into a "them versus me" situation. when you get to that stage it just devolves into slowly proving them right.

I don't do that. I rather the players have fun


I assume they've seen the character sheet? can see clearly that the character is not at some unfair level of advantage over theirs? that could go a long way towards allaying any suspicions of DM favoritism. if you've already done that and you are, as you have pointed out, already rolling in the open then you may want to check that they aren't just messing with you on the DMPC comments. and if it turns out they're serious...explain to them that there's really not much more you can do to prove you aren't cheating for your character and that they were the ones that convinced you to make one if they want the character gone.

Yep, they can see the sheet clearly. I'll check to make sure they aren't messing with me, thanks


Be sure not to be passive aggressive while doing so. Also offer to withdraw the character if it's bothering people.

Of course. It's about the players, after all


If they do want the DMPC gone, be sure to have them exit by getting horribly killed. Preferably in whatever way you think the players would find most hilarious.

Probably due to his own stupidity (The only rolls he fails happen to be Wisdom. He fails them quite frequently. Wisdom is his highest stat. It has led to pain for him before)


DMPCing often has a bad rap. So if said dmpc does good, not mattering if they are built really well, just lucky, or fudge rolls, the PCs will automatically feel that it is getting special treatment.
Have said dmpc just die a heroic death helping the party. Or (if they are average type party) have the dmpc die a bloody horrible death so the PCs can dance around the corpse.

They are the average party type

[endoperez]

Let the players roll the dice whenever the DMPC is concerned, instead of you rolling it. State what they have to roll before the dice is rolled, e.g. "let's see if he's clever enough to figure it out. If you get 10 or more, he's going to do it. If it's lower than that, he's just standing there confused".

Statistically it's the same... but for them, it might feel different.

[inexorabletruth]

This is all good advice.

However, when it comes to DMPCs, I always recommend a less is more approach. First of all, I always recommend against DMPCs… but that's beside the point.

But, back on point, basically play him soft and a little incompetent. Make him the beta of the group so that some other player can lead and the other team members can make decisions for the group. The less your DMPC shines, the more likely they'll be comfortable with your DMPC being around.

[Yora]

I think GM characters shouldn't exist in the first place.
Either have NPC followers controlled by the GM, or don't have them at all.

[Trinoya]

Make your rolls on the table if they begin to question anything.

[Yora]

That's a very slippery path to take. Once you start making some rolls in the open because the players demand it, they are justified to demand all rolls made in the open. And then you're basically no longer able to bend anything into a direction that would make a more entertaining game and also give up on the notion that the players should trust you that it will be fun. Then you're their antagonist, and I don't think that makes for very enjoyable games.

[Vitruviansquid]

Just kill off your DMPC. Your players clearly had no idea what they wanted when they encouraged you to make him/her in the first place.

[Tengu_temp]

My solution is simple: talk to them. Ask them does it look like you give your DPMC a preferential treatment, and tell them it's just the dice, and that since the rolls and the sheet are open they can confirm for themselves. And do it all in a friendly, reassuring way. Also, don't roll more for the DMPC than for the PCs; treat them equally in this regard.


I think GM characters shouldn't exist in the first place.
Either have NPC followers controlled by the GM, or don't have them at all.

I disagree. I never did it myself, but I've seen it work. All it requires is a degree of trust within the group, and for the DM to treat the DMPC fairly and not use its unique position for any advantages.

[Jay R]

The dice have almost nothing to do with it.

The DMPC will never make a mistake because he misunderstood the DM.
The DMPC will never step on the trapdoor.
The DMPC will never try to bribe the unbribable enemy.
The DMPC will never try to attack the well-intentioned stranger.
The DMPC will never piss off the mentor by accidentally mentioning the one thing guaranteed to upset him.
The DMPC will never turn his back to the Rogue hiding in the shadows waiting to stab somebody.
The DMPC will never use the wrong kind of attack on the weird monster with certain immunities.

Even if the DM has the DMPC enter the trap, say the wrong thing, attack the wrong person, or step in the wrong place, it didn't "just happen" to him like with all the other players. He decided to do it.

There are 10,000 ways in which the DMPC has advantages, simply because the person running him will always know what the other players don't know.

[Tengu_temp]

Which is why you don't use any of those advantages to the DMPC's benefit. The DMPC should have a mostly passive, support role, and I don't mean that in a combat way. I mean that it shouldn't be the primary idea guy or the party leader, but someone who mostly just tags along and goes with the plans the PCs make.

[HunterOfJello]

Kill off the DMPC in the next boss fight, then play the game without one for a while. Things will go much better and if you end up reintroducing a different one, then people will know you're not favoring him.

[Tengu_temp]

I disagree. The players will probably think "oh god, he thinks his account is clear after he killed the problematic DMPC, and now he introduced another one and will do the same **** with him". This is an OOC problem so it has to be solved through OOC means.

[Mr Beer]

I would talk to them about it as suggested. There's some good solutions ITT, let them pick the one they like i.e. fix it or kill it off.

Personally I don't have long term DMPCs and while they are with the party I tend to give them less XP or otherwise make them weaker than the PCs. They're only there to be meat shields/healers for a weak party and maybe (rarely) throw the players a bone if they need help working something out.

[CombatOwl]

I do roll in the open

Do I just have to deal with paranoid players?

Kill off the DMPC. Seriously. Be merciless, direct, and make it a logical consequence of player character actions.

[GungHo]

Kill him or, if he's somehow indespensible, turn him over to a player. Though, honestly, I suggest killing him at a moment at which he is most indespensible, and in a manner that inconveniences the crap out of the party. His last words should be "This... is why... we can't... have nice things... eeeerrrgh"

[Hyena]

Kill the DMPC. No ifs and buts.

[Jay R]

Kill off the DMPC. Seriously. Be merciless, direct, and make it a logical consequence of player character actions.

Well, the DM can either make a unilateral decision to kill off the DMPC. Or he can make it a logical consequence of player character actions.

But it can't be both.

[You can decide to kill him off, and pretend it's a logical consequence of player character actions, but that's a very different thing.]

[CombatOwl]

Well, the DM can either make a unilateral decision to kill off the DMPC. Or he can make it a logical consequence of player character actions.

But it can't be both.

[You can decide to kill him off, and pretend it's a logical consequence of player character actions, but that's a very different thing.]

I've never seen a party run an adventure where a DMPCs death couldn't be a logical consequence of what they're doing. "Keep him in the back, we don't want him involved because we don't want to split the XP!" Gee, isn't there a wonderful opportunity to have a ninja death squad take him out. Would have killed whomever was in the back, but it happened to be the DMPC because the players were a group of greedy murder-hobos.

[Remmirath]

I would suggest talking to them about it. They encouraged you to make this character in the first place, after all, so assuming that they still want the character there, they may have specific things that they don't want to see -- or they may for some reason have decided they no longer want the character there.

Have the other characters died? Assuming that you're not pulling any punches, and you're running a fairly lethal game, presumably your character may die as well. If no other characters have died, this is just a strange issue that they have.

Unless they have developed enough of a dislike for this character that they'd rather have them die no matter what, I recommend just playing them fairly as you have been doing (and ensuring that you are, indeed, not taking any advantage of your knowledge as opposed to the character's knowledge), until they die -- and making another may not be advisable in this campaign, since apparently your players, despite encouragement, are not really wanting you to play a character alongside them.


The dice have almost nothing to do with it.

The DMPC will never make a mistake because he misunderstood the DM.

This one is true and unavoidable, but I believe most DMs will allow players some leeway if they indeed misunderstood as well.


The DMPC will never step on the trapdoor.
The DMPC will never try to bribe the unbribable enemy.
The DMPC will never try to attack the well-intentioned stranger.
The DMPC will never piss off the mentor by accidentally mentioning the one thing guaranteed to upset him.
The DMPC will never turn his back to the Rogue hiding in the shadows waiting to stab somebody.
The DMPC will never use the wrong kind of attack on the weird monster with certain immunities.

These, however, might very well happen. I have seen all of these things happen. So long as you are successfully seperating player and character knowledge (or in this case, DM and character knowledge) there is no reason for any of this not to happen if it is in character to do so.


Even if the DM has the DMPC enter the trap, say the wrong thing, attack the wrong person, or step in the wrong place, it didn't "just happen" to him like with all the other players. He decided to do it.

Yes, but so long as they are acting in character and dealing with everything fairly, this difference is invisible. As far as the characters are concerned, it did "just happen".

[Drogorn]

I say just drop the DMPC. Preferably killing him in an amusing way. Don't you have enough to keep track of running NPCs anyway?

[Knaight]

That's a very slippery path to take. Once you start making some rolls in the open because the players demand it, they are justified to demand all rolls made in the open. And then you're basically no longer able to bend anything into a direction that would make a more entertaining game and also give up on the notion that the players should trust you that it will be fun. Then you're their antagonist, and I don't think that makes for very enjoyable games.

I make all rolls out in the open, and somehow this has never happened. There are plenty of ways you can bend things to make the game better, it just involves things other than altering die results. For instance, there's choosing between likely NPC choices based on what makes the best game.

[Sajiri]

We had what I thought was a dmpc in a campaign once. An overpowered cleric that travelled with us for a bit. I was secretly bothered by it- til he betrayed us at the end of a dungeon and he turned out to be our BBEG.

If you dont want to outright kill off the character, maybe its possible to re-purpose him somehow

[Rhynn]

Any advice?

Don't play DMPCs. Never a good idea. NPCs are fine, tagalong NPCs are fine, henchmen NPCs are fine (but best run by the players except when there's an great need to override their wishes), but DMPCs are at best unnecessary and frequently a bad idea.

Edit:
While we're at it, probably don't

bend anything into a direction that would make a more entertaining game

:smallyuk:

Adjudicate, don't direct.

[Raum]

Any advice?Drop the DMPC. Whether the favoritism is real or perceived is immaterial. The DMPC has become an issue.

That said, this "Thing is, I give my character more rolls than anybody else" is often a form of favoritism. It sounds like you're giving your DMPC too much screen time.

[Knaight]

Adjudicate, don't direct.

Directing is involved in adjudication. There will be points where there are sets of options which are all largely plausible and useful, and where it makes perfect sense to select based on which is interesting in the greater context. It doesn't have to be done by any means, but it's hardly against adjudication. Fudging rolls is, but that's not necessarily involved.

[SassyQuatch]

Be sure not to be passive aggressive while doing so. Also offer to withdraw the character if it's bothering people.
I agree. There's nothing wrong with a GMPC in itself, but since the players are getting passive-aggressive themselves it would be best to just talk with them.

"It was your guys' idea to have me create a party character, but if you have a problem with him or how he's being played then I'm willing to let him go."

But since us DMs are supposed to be evil don't adjust your encounters to account for a missing character for a while. You have to de-stress from player animosity somehow. :smallwink:

[MonochromeTiger]

I agree. There's nothing wrong with a GMPC in itself, but since the players are getting passive-aggressive themselves it would be best to just talk with them.

"It was your guys' idea to have me create a party character, but if you have a problem with him or how he's being played then I'm willing to let him go."

But since us DMs are supposed to be evil don't adjust your encounters to account for a missing character for a while. You have to de-stress from player animosity somehow. :smallwink:

which is thus bringing it back to the "me versus them" mentality I'm trying to warn against. if you're removing a character the players believe is getting favored unfairly, whether they're right or wrong, immediately following it up by punishing them for disliking something just gives them something else to be annoyed about and makes them justified in that annoyance.

[nedz]

Use the DMPC to show case the power of some opponent whom the party would be wise to run away from. The OP one shots the DMPC, preferably in a dramatic and memorable fashion. This won't work if you have gung ho players though — that would be a TPK.

[ElenionAncalima]

I would talk to your players, as many have suggested. If the players are truly bothered by him, and not just teasing, I would find a way to remove the character from the game.

Regardless, I would think about reducing the NPCs role. I would say some general guildlines:
1. Unless the party wants them to stay, keep the NPC as short term as possible.
2. Focus the NPC's class abilities towards support roles, like healing and buffing.
3. Never give players problems that can only be solved through the NPC.
4. Never jump in and do something with the NPC that the players are perfectly capable of doing themselves.

[Xervous]

Use the DMPC to show case the power of some opponent whom the party would be wise to run away from. The OP one shots the DMPC, preferably in a dramatic and memorable fashion. This won't work if you have gung ho players though — that would be a TPK.

you mean like this Guy (http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3037566/Great/61#61)?

[Jakodee]

I think GM characters shouldn't exist in the first place.
Either have NPC followers controlled by the GM, or don't have them at all.

Isn't that the same?

[TuggyNE]

I think GM characters shouldn't exist in the first place.
Either have NPC followers controlled by the GM, or don't have them at all.

Isn't that the same?

No, they're not the same. *mandatory reference to classification* :smalltongue:

[Jay R]

These, however, might very well happen. I have seen all of these things happen. So long as you are successfully seperating player and character knowledge (or in this case, DM and character knowledge) there is no reason for any of this not to happen if it is in character to do so.

Leaving aside the issue that it is all too easy to believe that you have separated player and character knowledge when you have not, because you made the decision that you believe you would have made without inside information...

It's not enough to separate player and character knowledge. The players need to believe that you have separated player and character knowledge. In this case, that is clearly not the case, or they wouldn't be complaining.

[CombatOwl]

Use the DMPC to show case the power of some opponent whom the party would be wise to run away from. The OP one shots the DMPC, preferably in a dramatic and memorable fashion. This won't work if you have gung ho players though — that would be a TPK.

It's funny, my current party seems to waffle over whether we should run or fight for every encounter that isn't trivial. Usually we spend two rounds debating the merits of whether we should just leave (we have three casters that can move the party out of the fight), before deciding that no matter the CR, we're just going to Neverwinter Nights it and fight our way through. If the DM ever dropped one of his DMPCs like that, we'd probably sit there debating the merits of teleport for a few rounds, then finally decide to get serious and charge in.

It's funny how Prismatic Sphere can act a bit like the Enterprise Ready Room. Have a problem? Prismatic Sphere, debate the matter among the senior staff.

[Remmirath]

Leaving aside the issue that it is all too easy to believe that you have separated player and character knowledge when you have not, because you made the decision that you believe you would have made without inside information...

I suppose it may be. I find it's fairly easy both to do it and to notice if you feel inclined not to do it (and then make sure you do it anyhow), but that is not necessarily true of everyone.


It's not enough to separate player and character knowledge. The players need to believe that you have separated player and character knowledge. In this case, that is clearly not the case, or they wouldn't be complaining.

True. Something to convince them may be in order. Or, it's possible that this person is not actually doing so. I still hold that talking to the players is likely best, to find out exactly what their problem is. If they actually do still want the character (since they urged the DM to play it in the first place), killing them off in a brutal display might actually make things worse.

[Jay R]

I suppose it may be. I find it's fairly easy both to do it and to notice if you feel inclined not to do it (and then make sure you do it anyhow), but that is not necessarily true of everyone.

The biggest problem is not separating character knowledge from player knowledge. It's that the DM knows which character knowledge is important and which isn't. If you announce that the room contains a bed, a table 30 inches high, a red chair, two small oval rugs, a silver cup, a golden plate, a green tunic thrown over the bed, and a few rose petals on the floor, then all characters have equal knowledge of the contents. But the DMPC's player will ignore the items that were thrown in to add color, and focus on the fact that the chair is red, if that's the real clue.

Yes, it's "character knowledge", and available to all, but the player running the DMPC automatically remembers the very small amount of character knowledge that is relevant.

Has the DMPC ever spent a lot of time searching for secret doors when there wasn't one, or looked for traps when no trap was present? Has he spent an hour or more trying to decode a clue that in fact has nothing to do with anything? Has he given up on the real clue because he didn't understand how important it was? Does he waste time questioning somebody who knows nothing, or forget to question the one person who has the important clue? Does he ever say the wrong thing to the noble, or misunderstand what the guard said, or simply forget one important instruction? Have you ever argued with the DM about whether or not your DMPC was already holding his weapon? Have you ever spent hours trying to prove a theory which turns out to be incorrect?

Yes, you are only using character knowledge. But unlike players playing PCs, you are remembering all the important player knowledge, and not using the meaningless player knowledge.

[TriForce]

While i do not consider DMPC's a bad thing by definition, and i also find the obsession with killing off the DMPC most people have here a bit disturbing, i do think that in this case the DMPC should stop travelling with the party.

dmpc's are a funny thing, and i personally only include them when ABSOLUTLY needed ( for example, when the party has no source of healing whatsoever).
its very easy to unintentionally favor the dmpc, becouse of the reasons already given by others.

all in all, its just a npc, if the party thinks the campaign would be more fun without it, get rid of it in a satisfying manner

[Rhynn]

all in all, its just a npc

A DMPC is not just a NPC. If it were, it'd be called a DMPC. A DMPC is a PC played by the DM, a NPC is explicitly not a PC (the clue is sort of in the terms).

[GrayGriffin]

The dice have almost nothing to do with it.

The DMPC will never make a mistake because he misunderstood the DM.
The DMPC will never step on the trapdoor.
The DMPC will never try to bribe the unbribable enemy.
The DMPC will never try to attack the well-intentioned stranger.
The DMPC will never piss off the mentor by accidentally mentioning the one thing guaranteed to upset him.
The DMPC will never turn his back to the Rogue hiding in the shadows waiting to stab somebody.
The DMPC will never use the wrong kind of attack on the weird monster with certain immunities.

Even if the DM has the DMPC enter the trap, say the wrong thing, attack the wrong person, or step in the wrong place, it didn't "just happen" to him like with all the other players. He decided to do it.

There are 10,000 ways in which the DMPC has advantages, simply because the person running him will always know what the other players don't know.

Funny how you mention that. In a PTU game I'm playing, the setting is Kanto, and is game-canon compliant. This means, that, for example, when we met Giovanni, we knew OOC that he was the leader of Team Rocket, who some of our party members had had bad dealings with before. However, none of us used this knowledge IC, so I don't see why a GM couldn't do something similar.

[TriForce]

A DMPC is not just a NPC. If it were, it'd be called a DMPC. A DMPC is a PC played by the DM, a NPC is explicitly not a PC (the clue is sort of in the terms).

my point being, that a DMNPC is still a npc, and thus expendable

[Rhynn]

my point being, that a DMNPC is still a npc, and thus expendable

That's the thing, though - it's not. A DMPC is the DM's special snowflake character, and frequently anything but expendable.

A NPC party member, hanger-on, companion, ally, guide, whatever, is a NPC. A DMPC is the DM's PC... and there's a reason that usually turns into a horror show. (You're pretty much guaranteed it'll be worse if it's the DM's PC from that campaign way back where they did all this awesome stuff omg and he punched out Elminster's teeth and seduced Alustriel and Mystra and --)

[Jay R]

my point being, that a DMNPC is still a npc, and thus expendable

NPCs are expendable, and PCs are not, only because there is a person who identifies with the character. The difference between a DMPC and an NPC is that a DMPC is a character that the DM identifies with. He or she is therefore no more expendable than any other PC.

People do not object to the referee playing characters - all NPCs are run by the referee. They object to a PC who is run by the referee, for the same reason a sports team would object if the referee were an employee of the other team.

Even if the referee were capable of doing it completely fairly, there is no way for a player, with incomplete knowledge of the situation to know that the DMPC, run by somebody with complete knowledge, didn't use any of it for the benefit of his player, even subconsciously.

[TuggyNE]

That's the thing, though - it's not. A DMPC is the DM's special snowflake character, and frequently anything but expendable.

A NPC party member, hanger-on, companion, ally, guide, whatever, is a NPC. A DMPC is the DM's PC... and there's a reason that usually turns into a horror show. (You're pretty much guaranteed it'll be worse if it's the DM's PC from that campaign way back where they did all this awesome stuff omg and he punched out Elminster's teeth and seduced Alustriel and Mystra and --)

No sense arguing about what a DMPC is when there's a whole range of definitions.

[Guancyto]

Kill it with fire.

Yes, it was the players' idea to bring it in in the first place, but players on the whole don't know what they want until they're neck deep in water at the bottom of a well that's filling up.

Kill it with a smile on your face and a song in your heart. If you want to be nice, give your players a 'chance' to save it and fail.

Then don't make another.

[Icewraith]

Well do you like your PC? This sort of thing can happen in a game where people make characters and rotate DMing.

If you don't want to kill him off, just have him go off and train or vanish or whatever, and when someone else takes their turn DMing pull him out, bring him up to the level of the party (maybe have the players adjucate what loot your PC gets so there's no accusations of unfairness- but you were DMing for them the whole time and the DMPC thing is an issue and a drag to run on the DM's end, so you should be coming in at whatever power level the party is at now even if they leveled a bunch or whatever when you stopped running the DMPC), and be a player.

[Remmirath]

The biggest problem is not separating character knowledge from player knowledge. It's that the DM knows which character knowledge is important and which isn't. If you announce that the room contains a bed, a table 30 inches high, a red chair, two small oval rugs, a silver cup, a golden plate, a green tunic thrown over the bed, and a few rose petals on the floor, then all characters have equal knowledge of the contents. But the DMPC's player will ignore the items that were thrown in to add color, and focus on the fact that the chair is red, if that's the real clue.

Some will. Some won't. It's entirely possible to think, instead, of "what piece of scenery would this character focus on".


Yes, it's "character knowledge", and available to all, but the player running the DMPC automatically remembers the very small amount of character knowledge that is relevant.

They remember it, but they don't have to use it.


Has the DMPC ever spent a lot of time searching for secret doors when there wasn't one, or looked for traps when no trap was present? Has he spent an hour or more trying to decode a clue that in fact has nothing to do with anything? Has he given up on the real clue because he didn't understand how important it was? Does he waste time questioning somebody who knows nothing, or forget to question the one person who has the important clue? Does he ever say the wrong thing to the noble, or misunderstand what the guard said, or simply forget one important instruction? Have you ever spent hours trying to prove a theory which turns out to be incorrect?

Yes to all of this, from what I've seen -- but I don't know about this person.


Have you ever argued with the DM about whether or not your DMPC was already holding his weapon?

This one won't happen, but one should be able to apply the same standards to the DMPC as to the PC.


Yes, you are only using character knowledge. But unlike players playing PCs, you are remembering all the important player knowledge, and not using the meaningless player knowledge.

Remembering it, yes, but not necessarily not using the meaningless knowledge.

[prufock]

Don't kill your DMPC... have the players kill it.

Let your DMPC acknowledge that he is superior. Have him get out of trickier and trickier situations. Have him get a lucky shot on a much higher CR monster that the party has no chance against. On his own. Rub it in a little - "Where were you guys on that one? Napping? HA HA HA." He demands larger shares of treasure because he's doing most of the work. He gets the beautiful princess' attentions. He sweats awesome and pisses badass!

Make them HATE this character, and regret ever asking for it. When it reaches the critical point, they WILL kill him. Make it epic.

*Note: This will only work for a certain type of group. Yours might just start to hate the game, not the DM Player Character.

[Rhynn]

No sense arguing about what a DMPC is when there's a whole range of definitions.

Looked at them before, don't find them that useful. I think "DMPC" is descriptive in itself, adding a bunch more terms hardly anyone will know the meaning of is just going to confuse things more. Explaining one term ("DMPC means the DM's PC, not a NPC") is easier.


[stuff]

Jay R's latest post addressed this though:


Even if the referee were capable of doing it completely fairly, there is no way for a player, with incomplete knowledge of the situation to know that the DMPC, run by somebody with complete knowledge, didn't use any of it for the benefit of his player, even subconsciously.

That's an issue you can't get around if it exists.

My personal quibble, though, is more fundamental: having used DMPCs in my teen years and read countless peoples' experiences with them, I think they are, most of all, unnecessary*, and have enormous potential for harm, and are so strongly associated with very specific kinds of bad GMing that I would avoid them like the plague as a player.

* There's a very specific type of DMPC that may be necessary: in a rotating GM game with a single party, each GM is going to have a PC, too. I think they shouldn't get to play their PC when GMing, though - the PC should be taken out of the action or otherwise sidelined, or controlled (except for purely characterization roleplay with no adventure-relevant decision-making) by another player.

[TuggyNE]

Looked at them before, don't find them that useful. I think "DMPC" is descriptive in itself, adding a bunch more terms hardly anyone will know the meaning of is just going to confuse things more. Explaining one term ("DMPC means the DM's PC, not a NPC") is easier.

It would be easier, yes, except that you have to keep re-explaining it in every post, because there is no consensus on exactly what a DMPC means. Some people would label a particularly obnoxious NPC that doesn't accompany the party much a DMPC; some would consider a hireling a DMPC; etc. So instead of wasting dozens of posts in every thread arguing back and forth, I figured, hey, let's define all the shades with new and (hopefully) fairly intuitive names.

[TriForce]

That's the thing, though - it's not. A DMPC is the DM's special snowflake character, and frequently anything but expendable.

A NPC party member, hanger-on, companion, ally, guide, whatever, is a NPC. A DMPC is the DM's PC... and there's a reason that usually turns into a horror show. (You're pretty much guaranteed it'll be worse if it's the DM's PC from that campaign way back where they did all this awesome stuff omg and he punched out Elminster's teeth and seduced Alustriel and Mystra and --)

exactly, wich is why a DMPC is very expendable. any dm that considers a DMPC of equal value as actual player characters is doing it wrong imho.

the moment a DM realizes "my players would like the campaign more if my DMPC wasnt in it" he should toss the DMPC characters sheet into the "dont touch this until you are a normal player again" bin

[Ydaer Ca Noit]

So you have a character they hate, and you will just kill him? What a waste.

Make him a villain!

[Isamu Dyson]

Lots of bloodlust in this thread :smalleek:.

[SassyQuatch]

Lots of bloodlust in this thread :smalleek:.
The thought that there are a variety of play styles which are all viable is a very small minority.

And the advocating of murder of players. That's bad too. Even I wouldn't do that as an "evil DM". Might end up restricting the snack funds pool.

[Stephen_E]

We had what I thought was a dmpc in a campaign once. An overpowered cleric that travelled with us for a bit. I was secretly bothered by it- til he betrayed us at the end of a dungeon and he turned out to be our BBEG.

If you dont want to outright kill off the character, maybe its possible to re-purpose him somehow

I was in a game once which had a dmpc that was really bugging us players where it got to the point that I wanted to get together with the others and kill him. The other player wussed out on the premise that the GM would get p1ssed and stop it happening and kill us, and frankly despite been the prime Martial Melee PC I didn't think I could win solo hitting him while he was asleep.:smallfrown: I posted the GM about the problem and the character toned down some. Later turned out to be the BBEG's right hand.

I still regret I couldn't get a single other player to help me kill try and kill him. One of the other players has also said he regrets not helping me. :-)
Would have been interesting to see how the GM would've handled it.