DMPC: is it really so bad?

[Chester]

Hello everyone!

I've been playing in a campaign with a good friend of mine since around March 2013, via Google+ / Roll20.

Long story short . . . with four of us initially playing, my buddy (DM) introduced his own PC around the second or third session.

I switch on and off DMing with him. I keep my PC in the game when I DM.

The group has been in flux for the duration of the game, and at this point, there are three of us (one of whom was not an original player).

Needless to say, we have a DMPC constantly.

Now, I've heard so many negative things said about the DMPC, but really...is it so bad? I can tell you that when I DM, I forget half of what my PC can do. When my buddy DM's, the DMPC takes hits and even gets knocked down quite a bit.

Anyway, just want to hear your thoughts regarding the good, the bad, and the ugly of a DMPC.

[Necroticplague]

The Good: It allows people who prefer the cooperative dynamic of being in the party to still be in even when they also have to act as opposition as the DM.
The Bad: Sometimes act as painfully blatant exposition-dumpers.Mildly annoying, but at least useful.
The Ugly:The DMPC acts as the main character of the story, with the rest of the party just being "and co.". Any half-decent DM can avoid this, but the bad ones that can't leave a very bad taste in the mouth and memory for others.

[Tommy2255]

The Good: Offers the possibility of some unique storytelling techniques because you have 1 main character whose reactions you can predict with 100% precision and accuracy. Allows for party balance in small groups, especially those that lack a caster or lack a meatshield.

The Bad: Can undercut the PCs when done badly. Difficult to play your own opponent convincingly since you know all of your own tricks.

The Ugly: Generally, any way to get away with not having a DMPC will probably be a more elegant solution. If your campaign is designed in such a way that it requires a DMPC, you'd be better off just using some other kind of Deus Ex Machina.

That said, if you're switching out as DM, it's easier to use a DMPC than to make excuses for why your character is off screen every other session.

[Totema]

From my experiences as a DM...

The good: If your group is relatively inexperienced, a good DMPC can serve as a gameplay guide. Show your players how a class is supposed to be played.

The bad: At times, your DMPC will either seem fairly useless (the actual players are doing most of the action) or will be bearing most of the weight (the players don't know what to do, while you, who made the scenario, know exactly). It's difficult to achieve a good balance.

The ugly: I often find playing a DMPC makes it hard to be a convincing player in your own game. How can you properly express any reaction to anything when you already know the progression of events? This can be minimized if your players love to improvise, but if they instead rely on the DM for input, this hits particularly hard.

[Chester]

That said, if you're switching out as DM, it's easier to use a DMPC than to make excuses for why your character is off screen every other session.

This.

Plus, it leaves the current party with two players.

I found myself making excuses for my DMPC to wander off in a dungeon, or to not hang around when the others are solving puzzles / gathering information / interacting with townsfolk.

[Blackhawk748]

My group almost always has a DMPC, usually it is literally just the DMs character, it isnt specially involved in the quest or anything, its just another adventurer, so we havent really had any horror stories about DMPCs.

Honestly the closest we came is when we played a Horror Campaign and the party unleashed the Herald of an Elder Evil. I had made an Artifact called Voidbane. It was effectively a small stone that would bond with a weapon but the weapon had to be wielded by an Elf, Dwarf, Orc, or Hobgoblin and needed to be on a melee weapon. So i made a Hobgoblin Fighter to be sure that the party could use the thing. Well, we had a half elf Ranger, Ranged specialist, a Grey Elf Sorcerer, a Tiefling DFA, a Duskling Totemist, and a Gnomish Spellthief, so needless to say i wound up wielding it, i just made sure to give everyone else a fancy weapon to compensate.

[The Insanity]

It's only as bad as the DM will make it bad.

[Gnaeus]

In the hands of the best DM in the world, it is still the worst thing he can do, and a campaign and friendship ender waiting to happen. There is nothing a DMPC can do for a game that cannot be done better with other, less problematic methods.

[kardar233]

In the hands of the best DM in the world, it is still the worst thing he can do, and a campaign and friendship ender waiting to happen. There is nothing a DMPC can do for a game that cannot be done better with other, less problematic methods.

I disagree in the strongest of terms. A DMPC is a DMing tool, that while more potentially problematic than others can be positively used in a campaign to great effect.

[TypoNinja]

I ran a DMPC for a while, the game started with only two people, and they weren't the greatest optimizers, so they really needed the extra muscle. I deliberately designed the character to be secondary. He was surly, gave short answers to direct questions, was a bit of a mercenary so didn't have much a personal agenda other than to get paid, this gave him an excuse to not offer suggestions much.

Still didn't like it, two reasons. First. You spend a lot of combat time on yourself when you are a PC, and the monsters. Also when you are the DM doing the monsters you don't have the grace time on somebody elses turn to prepare yours. Towards the end of the campaign I felt like a lot of combat was spent with my players watching me roll dice. This made me uncomfortable. I only kept the character because my players insisted when I offered to retire it.

Second was a matter of my own sanity. I have enough crap to keep track of running a game without adding yet more. My experience running the game would have been improved by not running a DMPC. I had virtually no downtime all evening whenever I ran that game. It was exhausting.

[Raven777]

Three examples using the LotR movies as a reference.

The Good : The DMPC is Gimli. The character has flavor and pulls his own weight. When he takes an active role, he's just one more party member. His presence has negligible effect on the narrative.

The Bad : The DMPC is Gandalf. The character pulls his own weight and that of the rest of the party. When he takes an active role, he saves everyone's ass. His presence is used to steer the narrative.

The Ugly : The DMPC is Aragorn. He always takes an active role. In fact, he steals the spotlight the moment he's introduced. His presence is the centerpiece of the narrative.

[Pinkie Pyro]

I tend to play games with few players, and am usually the DM, being the most experienced with the game and DMing in general, and I do tend to add in a DMPC, and stick him where the party is the weakest, usually. No one's had a problem with me using them, ever, so I don't see the problem people seem to have with them.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The Good: It is nice to have a friend in small parties.

The Bad: God's personal Mary Sue.

The Ugly:The DM unleashes all sorts of cheese, even some that may not exist, by consistently ruling in favor of his characters in ANY rules discrepancy (and pulls off of all sorts of sources you have not heard of/can be tricky to get to).

[Samm]

Never been involved with a DMPC personally, but it stands a ridiculous opportunity for an abuse of power. It's also a really convenient way to railroad the adventure. Furthermore, I can't see how you're going to RP him properly, you'll always be thinking in terms of him/her pushing the story in the right direction.

[The Insanity]

Frodo was the worst DMPC ever. Useless, had to be given equipment over his WBL, was the center of the campaign, was going on solo adventures (while still being a PC!). Ugh.

[Melayl]

In the hands of the best DM in the world, it is still the worst thing he can do, and a campaign and friendship ender waiting to happen. There is nothing a DMPC can do for a game that cannot be done better with other, less problematic methods.

I also disagree strongly.When done correctly/well (yes, it is possible), it takes none of the spotlight from the characters. When our group (when I had a group) used one, it worked out well.

Sadly, we rarely hear about the DMPC's that are done well. We only hear about the disasters (because no one rants about the good things that happen, only the bad).

[Tengu_temp]

No, DMPCs are not so bad. It's just that Sturgeon's Law applies, and many DMs can't resist the temptation to turn the DMPC into their pet spotlight-stealing Mary Sue.

[Krobar]

All you gotta do is keep the DMPC in the background and have him just go with the flow, and not steal any spotlights, and it's no problem.

[Lord Raziere]

In the hands of the best DM in the world, it is still the worst thing he can do, and a campaign and friendship ender waiting to happen. There is nothing a DMPC can do for a game that cannot be done better with other, less problematic methods.

say that again, when you have only one other friend to play with and you both want to want to be PC's. some of us aren't obsessed with player agency as the be-all end-all of RPG's. me? I enjoy following along whatever plotline my friend has in store, doing stuff to change it however I feel like and he is cool it, and I'm cool with it, even both we both have GMPC's in the games we run.

I mean, really, why so uptight and dramatic? this is a game. not every game follows your definition of what you think is fun to the letter. there is no better, there is only taste when it comes to entertainment, and your tastes might be good in a way that makes the usual 5-6 people adventure good, but some of us don't play it that way.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Still didn't like it, two reasons. First. You spend a lot of combat time on yourself when you are a PC, and the monsters. Also when you are the DM doing the monsters you don't have the grace time on somebody elses turn to prepare yours. Towards the end of the campaign I felt like a lot of combat was spent with my players watching me roll dice. This made me uncomfortable. I only kept the character because my players insisted when I offered to retire it.

Second was a matter of my own sanity. I have enough crap to keep track of running a game without adding yet more. My experience running the game would have been improved by not running a DMPC. I had virtually no downtime all evening whenever I ran that game. It was exhausting.
This. You can do everything right with making a support-only follower who doesn't get spotlight time and never takes initiative and fills vital missing party roles and blah blah blah, but it still adds one more level of hassle to an already-difficult job of running the game.

If for some reason you're convinced that you need such a character, I recommend handing him over to a player to control during combat. (That's what I've done the last few times my group has wound up inviting an NPC along)

[Perpetr8r]

Well my group Round Robins our DMs around. One person will DM an Adventure path or idea they had then pass the game on to one of the other 2 players (We are a 3 person party) that DMPC now becomes a normal PC character. The new DMPC stays the same and works within the dynamic we build as normal PCs.

Never had an issue with DMPCs unless the DM was just a jerk to begin with and that is the DM not the fact he created a character.

[Hurnn]

This. You can do everything right with making a support-only follower who doesn't get spotlight time and never takes initiative and fills vital missing party roles and blah blah blah, but it still adds one more level of hassle to an already-difficult job of running the game.

If for some reason you're convinced that you need such a character, I recommend handing him over to a player to control during combat. (That's what I've done the last few times my group has wound up inviting an NPC along)

I dunno you go from having to deal with it to risking the players abusing it, "Oh mary sue the pacifist cleric steps into to melle to sheild my fighter as he withdrawls from a combat we started that we shoudlnt have and are clearly out classed in sacrificing her self so we can get away." Extreme example but I hope you see my point.

[HunterOfJello]

If they're handled extremely well and used purely as a tool to help out a bit in combat and maybe push the story along every now and then, a DMPC can be a just barely tolerable existence.

If they aren't handled extremely well, then they're a horrible addition to a campaign that can generally ruin everything for everyone. That's why I almost always recommend against having one in any campaign.

[Samm]

If they're handled extremely well and used purely as a tool to help out a bit in combat and maybe push the story along every now and then, a DMPC can be a just barely tolerable existence.

Furthermore, if you're DMing properly, you can balance encounters to suit the party and they shouldn't need this extra help in combat.

[Popertop]

I would say don't run one unless everyone is okay with it.

When I was learning the game, the group had a Round Robin style of DMing because it was this outrageously long planned Epic Level Campaign.

The main DM (it was his story pretty much) had a PC, a dwarf cleric/contemplative/othergoodstuff that gained Chosenhood during one of the paths he wasn't DMing for. Being the Chosen of a particular deity is a concept found in the Forgotten Realms setting. It grants you major benefits, you are basically the Jesus to that particular God.

This was one in a laundry list of issues I had with this group, for instance breaking the rules for certain characters, but not mine of course.

Them: "This character is so sick, they have Righteous might on their armor."
Me: "Can I get something like that on my armor?"
Them: *Blank Stare*


Those issues aside, I think a DMPC can be done wonderfully, and have a great impact on the story. Think about a Paladin who isn't overbearing and at a critical spot in a fight going horribly sacrifices himself so the party can survive. Or any other manner of character that earns the party's respect. The player's loyalty can be a powerful resource indeed.

[Seharvepernfan]

I regularly use DMPC's, and I think the only one some of players have resented was the PC of a player who had to leave the group, but stayed in as a DMPC, then later under partial-control by another player, until the end of the adventure. I think the resentment (if there actually was any) came from me directing that character's actions when the person playing her had her do (or not do) things she would or wouldn't have. Like, she was a druid, and at one point she went to try to heal her stranded and dying animal companion, when they wanted to run. Still, nobody actually voiced anything, and if they were ever actually upset, they're over it now.

EDIT: Anyway, in my experience, as long as they don't (or very rarely) take the spotlight from the PC's, they're perfectly acceptable. I use them to instill a bit of control over (and survivability into) my group's party (who have a habit of dying stupidly, because they are intolerant of plans and common sense - that's their playstyle, and that's how I deal with it - we have fun).

[Popertop]

EDIT: Anyway, in my experience, as long as they don't (or very rarely) take the spotlight from the PC's, they're perfectly acceptable. I use them to instill a bit of control over (and survivability into) my group's party (who have a habit of dying stupidly, because they are intolerant of plans and common sense - that's their playstyle, and that's how I deal with it - we have fun).

I think this is an important point to keep in mind. As long as everyone is having fun, it should be okay.

[BWR]

A DMPC is only as bad or good as the DM. As long as the DM doesn't use it to always overshadow the PCs or railroad the players, it can be a fun and useful character to have along.

[Rosstin]

I ran a DMPC for a while, the game started with only two people, and they weren't the greatest optimizers, so they really needed the extra muscle. I deliberately designed the character to be secondary. He was surly, gave short answers to direct questions, was a bit of a mercenary so didn't have much a personal agenda other than to get paid, this gave him an excuse to not offer suggestions much.

Still didn't like it, two reasons. First. You spend a lot of combat time on yourself when you are a PC, and the monsters. Also when you are the DM doing the monsters you don't have the grace time on somebody elses turn to prepare yours. Towards the end of the campaign I felt like a lot of combat was spent with my players watching me roll dice. This made me uncomfortable. I only kept the character because my players insisted when I offered to retire it.

Second was a matter of my own sanity. I have enough crap to keep track of running a game without adding yet more. My experience running the game would have been improved by not running a DMPC. I had virtually no downtime all evening whenever I ran that game. It was exhausting.

My experience exactly.

A friend of mine loves DMPCs though, and he can always pull them off. He's an actor, maybe it's some kind of magic.

[RegalKain]

This is a tough one really, I mean, I've seen and been on the sides of both really good, and really bad DMPCs.

The downside I find often as someone else pointed out, is that it's absolutely exhausting to play a PC while you DM, at least for me it is, but we tend to run very long sessions and they are almost entirely off the cuff, because our group has a VERY hard time sticking to anything remotely close to a plan or plotline. As such having another character to keep up with can be difficult. I find it much easier to DMPC in the BESM system, as you can talk the defect cannot talk, and it's easy to just roll through combat in BESM. In D&D, especially at higher levels I've really run into the problem of my players watching me roll dice and doing nothing, it's the same reason after a lot of play-testing we have all agreed we don't like mass combat, or army combat, to much time spent not playing.

I once made a DMPC for a party that wanted to go Epic (We started at level 18) the this character was a Bone Knight with some other things thrown in, at the time we had made house rules and homebrew for the Toughness feat (We've since scrapped it and are looking at changing it again.) He was incredibly hard to kill and could dish out some damage, he didn't outshine the party though, because I played him bad purposefully. He'd kill one or two creatures in combat and the party got the rest, the main issue arose, when the party decided to stab him in the back. (Almost literally.) I even stepped out of character and told them this was a very, very bad idea and it wouldn't end well, please re-consider. They thought nothing of it and proceeded. (He was built with the Phrenic Template) Combat started, he won initiative, swift action to use his boots to get close to the primary caster, Slay Living, she fails her fort save and dies, round kicks over they do some damage not nearly enough to kill him. Round 2 he uses his once a day Psychic Crush, party member fails the save and is dropped to dying. This spiraled way out of control very quickly, why? Because I optimized the character to almost never die, be able to heal rapidly and easily, and to have a few insta-kills if the party ever got into serious trouble, I never expected them to turn and kill him, that said, I wasn't going to simply let them win, it's the same as if they had said F it and attacked a general in an army (Which they've also done to a TPK) but our group is very brutal about consequence, they weren't angry or upset, a bit surprised that it ended in such a way, the point stands a DMPC is a very bad idea in my opinion.

If you use them to steer the campaign even a bit, it feels as if you're railroading your players, if you don't your players (At least mine, and I do when dealing with another's DMPC) feel as if your PC is simply a waste of space, as things are being built around 4 people, but they only have 3 and a half because you can't help them with puzzles and stuff (You already know the answer.) if they are built tough then when/if the party turns, you can have what happened to our party happen. If they aren't built tough then you either get them killed helping the party, ot have them hang back, in which case once again it feels like you're wasting time having them there.

In our current campaign we have 4 players (Thankfully our 4th roommate decided to join us this time.) We're all quite happy with how it's going and our DM has asked if we want him to roll up a character to go with us, the answer is always a No. [/rant]

tl;dr it's a lot more effort then it's worth, I think the only time a DMPC makes sense is if you have a very, very small player base, and you have to have someone fill in the party.

[inexorabletruth]

Good, or bad are unfair ways of defining DMPC, because results vary by group. I think the better way to put it is to say "Handle with care."

There's much that can go wrong when a DM starts jumping in on the decision-making, quest-choosing and sudden (seemingly unwarranted) skill-checking. But if it's handled right, a DMPC won't do any more harm to game harmony than any other PC. It sounds like your group is handling it right because you guys are all still having fun and DM-Player trust hasn't broken down as a result of the DMPC.

Carry on.

[Rosstin]

Good, or bad are unfair ways of defining DMPC, because results vary by group. I think the better way to put it is to say "Handle with care."

DMPCs are like bleach! Excellent for taking out stains, but don't drink it.

[The Insanity]

DMPCs are like optimization.

[LordHenry]

DMPCs are like optimization.

sometimes less is more.

[The Insanity]

Except when it's not.

[Zubrowka74]

If you play a DMPC as an NPC, you won't have much problems. I mean, what's the big difference of letting an NPC join the group or hiring one for a share of the loot? The line is blurry already. Bad DM can be a jerk as much with an NPC than with a DMPC.

[Kudaku]

It should be noted that DMPC is a term with different meanings for different people - for some it just means the DM is controlling an NPC travelling with the party for a time, for others it translates into a full-blown PC who's a core member of the party and is treated accordingly, and for some it translates into the DM inflicting Cyborg Pirate Ninja Jesus on the party.

As with most other aspects of tabletop RPGs, your mileage may vary.

[Captainspork]

My campaign started with 3 players and myself. The group of three players turned into 2 quickly (had a player drop out). This campaign started over 3 years ago and has had a DMPC ever since. Keep in mind, we alternate who DMs, so having a DMPC is pretty useful for keeping partys somewhat consistent. My experiences:

The Good: the DMPCs I've used have become part of, but not essential to, the main plot, despite never truly making any of the decisions (they will offer opinions, but in that regard are really no different from an NPC). Honestly, the DMPCs have been more involved in PC relationships (initiating by the PCs) than the story itself. I see this as developing characters and story, not limiting it.

The Bad: if you are alternating between DMs (sounds like this is the case) then it becomes challenging trying to RP a character who generally is very reserved (since your DMPC should rarely, if ever, be making group decisions.

The Ugly: it's all about the person who wields the tool, I suppose. I've seen it be awful, but in those circumstances I think it's more on the DMs execution rather than it being a bad tool.

[NightbringerGGZ]

The Good: They can fill in important missing niches in some campaigns. They can be useful as plot devices. They can give the GM a way to participate if he's been feeling the urge to play a character.

The Bad: The might dominate the game or become overly important to the party's success. Players might view them as expendable cannon fodder and tempted to use them as such.

The Ugly: If used poorly they can wreck games.

[~Nye~]

From my experience, when I have DMPC'd I have had alot of animosity from the players I play with since, they feel like they're the ones who have control when it comes to their actions and ultimately are the ones perusing the real goals in any campaign I run.
Although, that being said I have had some positive experiences with DMPCing, I feel if the players are a little inexperienced or new to the game it's often nice to help them role-play by talking in character with them, because you have spent a great deal of time creating this character, so in return you get the PCs actually speaking in character with or without accents. Instead of saying "I talk to the barmaid and ask if she has a room." they say I approach the barmaid, then begin speaking in character "whats cooking good-looking." which then creates dialogue. I also feel like it gives the players a touchstone character who is there to relay certain background info regarding certain elements of your campaign. In some ways you can flesh out your world easily if you have a DMPC who can do this, I had an archivist who was very much like this, and he would just ramble on and on about the most useless info, but my players gave me great feedback, some went as far as telling me they felt like the world I had made was akin to faerun in terms of lore and depth. Having a DMPC for me is like you're playing the supporting actor/actress in a play, because when there characters act or do something, your character can say to them subtly "Was that the right decision?" or maybe something more forward by having a full blown arguement, this can encourage a lot of in game role play and dialogue. I feel a DMPC can work depending on the elements of the party.
All this being said, I have has some of my DMPCs tortured murdered and mutilated because well, the party meta-gamed a lot and didn't like the fact I had a character influencing the story a little because the plot was moving far too slowly. The balance is sometimes a little hard. I think it largley boils down to the players in your group and their opinion on the matter. If it slows down play time and you lose track of the DMPC alot, then maybe scrapping him is a good idea, or just making him a NPC which occasionally interacts with the party.

So in short
The Good: Can help inexperienced players in game, helps your world a lot by adding depth, flavour and realism to your world, can be used as a plot engine or device if used with subtlty.

The Bad: Can take the limelight away from the players if they are being a bit slow, takes some of the surprise out of the game if you play the character to safely in dangerous situations or cliffhanger moments.

The Ugly: The truth is, you shouldnt need one, since you have NPCs and PCs to do everything you're using him for, you might want to play, but you might be ruining the fun for the other players. Don't get too attached to the DMPC, because he is likely to be used and abused by meta-gaming selfish players.

[dascarletm]

I once had a DMPC in my party. The set up was that we were colonizing untamed lands for some minor noble. The Noble was an NPC, and for the first mission we took him with us to explore. We got in over our heads and the NPC had to fight to some extent. That's when Player A wants us to bring the NPC along and tells the DM he should make it a DMPC. No big deal right? Well when 3 of the 5 players say we should differ to the leader, the Noble, at every possible choice well..... The DM eventually ended that campaign because no matter how hard he tried to believably remove the NPC those 3 would get him back.
:smallfrown:

[Zman]

Ahh, what a surprise, more unfair DMPC rage. I absolutely can't stand how self righteous and pompous some posters can be.

DMPC's success, reception, and implementation is entirely dependent on the quality of the DM. Saying they are the worst tool a DM can use is a biased and unfair statement.

DMPCs can be misused, and can potentially steal the spotlight from the PCs. If the DMPC is leading the party, making party decisions, always has the solution to problems, displays omniscience, or is routinely in the spotlight then the DM shouldn't have a DMPC.

IMO if a DM poorly manages a DMPC to the levels of it ruining or severely negatively affecting a campaign then that DM would likely have ruined the game in any number of other ways. Now, some DMs may not be able to run a DMPC well, may not enjoy it, or will be too tempted to bloat their power and role within the party. If either of those is the case, then the DM shouldn't run a DMPC.


I run DMPCs in most of my games, especially in PBPs. Why? I enjoy playing and shaping a character as my own, letting them grow and interact with the party. Of course, why don't I just joint games as a player? Honestly, the vast majority if DMs I've encountered on the forums were downright terrible, and none were capable of running a successful long running game. So, I DM, as I know games have a good chance of success. PBP also allows me to compartmentalize my thoughts and make decisions and actions as if I was the character. My DMPCs never drive the plot, never overshadow the rest of the party, never are omniscient , and never make the group decisions. So far, it has worked extremely well.

Blanket statements about how DMPCs are a terrible idea etc are insulting to those of us who use them with much success. What is one persons experience is not a others.

[Enguebert]

Personally, i avoid DMPC.
There is no reason to have a DMPC. But i use NPC, hirelings and GroupPC

NPC : when the adventure require the presence of a NPC, like escorting a noble,.... The NPC is with the group, but is mostly inactive unless players ask him to do something he can do. DM create him and control him, but he will stay only for the plot (And can be a traitor)

Hireling : For one adventure, the group need special skills, or just another bodyguard. Character is created by DM but under control of player. DM can take control of character under special circumstances (can be a traitor, can refuse to do things against his alignment,...)

GroupPC : when the group need a class but nobody want to play it or another player because not enough players. Example : nobody want to play a healer.
Character is created by players, is under control of one player but if one character die/is out of game for long period, the player take control of this character until he can make a new char or play again his own character
Basically, this work like a cohort from prestige feat. Cannot be a traitor
But DM may decide the char is not available. Or is the target of kidnapping/heavy malediction/...

[Togo]

The problem is what is intended by running a DMPC, rather than simply an NPC.

If you want to give players an extra character on their side, a source of information on a particular topic, or just someone to interact with, then an NPC is fine. A DMPC is more than that, it's a character controlled by the DM who has the status of a PC, at least in part.

This is fraught with pitfalls, most of which have been covered already. The biggest problem, from my perspective, is that the DMPC always has perfect information. They're never going to misinterpret what is going on, miss what the DM believes in an obvious clue, invest in powers or abilities that aren't going to come up in game. They're going to be there if the player characters get into trouble, and will intervene only when the DM judges them to be in over their head. Sometimes that's not a good thing.

So the problem is not anything to do with the experience or otherwise of the DM. This isn't some 'advanced tool' that takes skill. The problem is the reverse - the more experienced your group, the more obvious the disconnect will be between what the players know and what the DMPC knows, and the more blatent the DMPC becomes as a bellweather for the DM's views on the game.

So given the existing issues raised about the complexity and difficulty of running a DMPC, and the issue I've raised about how it, I'd say a DMPC is best avoided no matter what the circumstances.

That said, and this is a fairly major caveat, one of the most common reasons for running a DMPC is that otherwise you won't get a game at all. If you need more than two characters to run the game you want, if you want to rotate DMs and don't want to break immersion by having characters popping in and out of the game like jack-in-the-boxes, if in short the choice is between a DMPC and no game at all, then go ahead and run one. It won't be the end of the world. It'll be a can of worms, and it helps to be aware of the problems, but the problems it causes aren't always fatal.

[Zman]

The problem is what is intended by running a DMPC, rather than simply an NPC.

If you want to give players an extra character on their side, a source of information on a particular topic, or just someone to interact with, then an NPC is fine. A DMPC is more than that, it's a character controlled by the DM who has the status of a PC, at least in part.

This is fraught with pitfalls, most of which have been covered already. The biggest problem, from my perspective, is that the DMPC always has perfect information. They're never going to misinterpret what is going on, miss what the DM believes in an obvious clue, invest in powers or abilities that aren't going to come up in game. They're going to be there if the player characters get into trouble, and will intervene only when the DM judges them to be in over their head. Sometimes that's not a good thing.

So the problem is not anything to do with the experience or otherwise of the DM. This isn't some 'advanced tool' that takes skill. The problem is the reverse - the more experienced your group, the more obvious the disconnect will be between what the players know and what the DMPC knows, and the more blatent the DMPC becomes as a bellweather for the DM's views on the game.

So given the existing issues raised about the complexity and difficulty of running a DMPC, and the issue I've raised about how it, I'd say a DMPC is best avoided no matter what the circumstances.

That said, and this is a fairly major caveat, one of the most common reasons for running a DMPC is that otherwise you won't get a game at all. If you need more than two characters to run the game you want, if you want to rotate DMs and don't want to break immersion by having characters popping in and out of the game like jack-in-the-boxes, if in short the choice is between a DMPC and no game at all, then go ahead and run one. It won't be the end of the world. It'll be a can of worms, and it helps to be aware of the problems, but the problems it causes aren't always fatal.

I disagree completely. Everything you've said is relevant if a poor DM is running a DMPC and cannot run one effectively. If the DM's DMPC has perfect information then its a fair bet their Big Bad does too, that is a fault of a poor DM, etc. Good DMs capable of running a DMPC do not have those listed issues.

Everything you listed are qualities of a bad DM, not inherent to a DMPC. To say that DMPCs are the tools of inexperienced DMs and groups is insulting and blatantly incorrect.

DMPCs can cause problems, its a lot of power to temp the DM, but by default the DM already has more power than that. If they are going to screw up the game with a DMCP, they were just as likely to screw it up in other ways. DMPCs can be trouble for some DMs, but they can also be used successfully and add to the enjoyment of the game. It is all up to the DM in question.

[The Insanity]

One time I used a DMPC to encourage the players to more interaction with the world and teach them to be more proactive instead of just waiting for an adventure to fall into their laps.

[Samm]

I disagree completely. Everything you've said is relevant if a poor DM is running a DMPC and cannot run one effectively. If the DM's DMPC has perfect information then its a fair bet their Big Bad does too, that is a fault of a poor DM, etc. Good DMs capable of running a DMPC do not have those listed issues.

Everything you listed are qualities of a bad DM, not inherent to a DMPC. To say that DMPCs are the tools of inexperienced DMs and groups is insulting and blatantly incorrect.

DMPCs can cause problems, its a lot of power to temp the DM, but by default the DM already has more power than that. If they are going to screw up the game with a DMCP, they were just as likely to screw it up in other ways. DMPCs can be trouble for some DMs, but they can also be used successfully and add to the enjoyment of the game. It is all up to the DM in question.

It's worth mentioning that most other features of the campaign aren't with the player characters 100% of the time. So if anything, it'll make a bad DM look worse.

[SassyQuatch]

Ahh, what a surprise, more unfair DMPC rage. I absolutely can't stand how self righteous and pompous some posters can be.
It seems to me that many posters on this board are not aware that DM doesn't actually stand for Door Mat.

[TuggyNE]

It seems to me that many posters on this board are not aware that DM doesn't actually stand for Door Mat.

The expression of this sentiment in conjunction with DM's-PCs worries me. Not, indeed, that DMs should be doormats by any means, but that someone who makes a point of saying "I'm not a doormat, have a DM's-PC to show you who's really in charge around here!" is in danger of indulging in a power trip. And that is not a healthy attitude to play a DM's-PC in (or to DM in at all, really, but often this is where the worst problems arise).

If you feel the need to pugnaciously defend your right to play a PC of your own in a game you DM, you should probably consider whether it is really wise and beneficial for you to exercise that right.

[SassyQuatch]

The expression of this sentiment in conjunction with DM's-PCs worries me. Not, indeed, that DMs should be doormats by any means, but that someone who makes a point of saying "I'm not a doormat, have a DM's-PC to show you who's really in charge around here!" is in danger of indulging in a power trip. And that is not a healthy attitude to play a DM's-PC in (or to DM in at all, really, but often this is where the worst problems arise).

If you feel the need to pugnaciously defend your right to play a PC of your own in a game you DM, you should probably consider whether it is really wise and beneficial for you to exercise that right.
Strawman argument based again upon the assumption that a DM who, with his group, decided to run a DMPC will automatically be a bad DM who is on a "power trip". If we are talking about unhealthy attitudes, that would be the one to be concerned about, since there is a strong anti-DM bias being used by many of the posters here.

That argument also leads to exactly what I was talking about. Trying to make the DM a doormat who can only play the game at the complete discretion of any and all of the other players. Which is the real reason why it is so hard to play a game, because so few people want to spend so much time and effort to create a game that is something special and then have it torn apart by unappreciative players who go off on tangent of how DMs are bad if they don't follow every player whim.

[TypoNinja]

It seems to me that many posters on this board are not aware that DM doesn't actually stand for Door Mat.

It seems to me that there is a flavor of DM who thinks that the title Dungeon Master implies something about his status around a table.

The game does not exist solely for the entertainment of a DM, you have players too, and like any good host making sure the guests in your world are enjoying themselves is your responsibility.

There is absolutely no function a DMPC can fulfill that an NPC (or several) couldn't have done other than ego for the DM.

[SassyQuatch]

There is absolutely no function a DMPC can fulfill that an NPC (or several) couldn't have done other than ego for the DM.
Be one of the heroes?

Seriously, I just said it, it is difficult to find DMs which very often means that you often have only a single person who has to do all of that hard work every single session for years. Except that they can only be the bad guy or a side character, and never have the chance to share in the camaraderie or the good feelings of helping to save the day.

And even though I have said it yet again almost undoubtedly this will lead to someone yet again claiming that it's only due to ego, bad DMing, trying to steal all the glory, being a walking McGuffin, or any of the other many tired and untrue arguments as to why the PCs are special snowflakes and no DMs should ever be allowed to be part of the hero club.

[TypoNinja]

Be one of the heroes?


See Ego option Above.

Seriously. DM and PC are different roles. You pick one.

You could try both, but it'd be the selfish option. You'll be a worse DM for trying, as it splits your attention to game aspects that previously weren't your problem to track, and as I noted above a DM already has more than enough to keep him busy without volunteering for new tasks.

You make a crappy PC too, since the mystery is gone. You already know all the answers, all the threats, all the secrets, all the plot twists, and if you are attached enough to the idea of getting your own PC into a game even after you decided to be DM I can't picture you killing your own special snowflake, so no risks either.

[SassyQuatch]

So it appears that the experiences of actual DMs don't matter, the experiences of players in groups where DMPCs have been used without issue don't matter, and... well, anybody who doesn't agree with anti-DMPC opinion and rhetoric doesn't matter.

Not much room for conversation is left then, when we repeatedly see that some people refuse to acknowledge that a game can be played in a different manner and still work and be fun for everybody.

Hooray for finger pointing and fear mongering... or something. :smallyuk:

[TuggyNE]

Strawman argument based again upon the assumption that a DM who, with his group, decided to run a DMPC will automatically be a bad DM who is on a "power trip".

That is not the argument I made at all.

What I did say is that a DM who decides to make their own PC with the attitude of "well I'll show you I'm not a doormat" is unwise and likely to cause problems. I did not say that all DM's-PCs come from such bellicosity, nor was I specifically attempting to argue against usage in all cases.

Rather, the attitude itself is harmful and dangerous, and, when combined with DM's-PCs, still more so.


That argument also leads to exactly what I was talking about. Trying to make the DM a doormat who can only play the game at the complete discretion of any and all of the other players.

First, all players should only play characters that are acceptable to the whole group, and should only play if they can manage that. That's not at all unique to the poor much-put-upon DM.

Second, the reasons for caution in making DM's-PCs are not founded on player whims, but on observation of the unique dynamics of a game in which one player runs, simultaneously, all the opposition, all of the neutrals, and many of the allies of the other players — and then adds in their own special character as well.


Which is the real reason why it is so hard to play a game, because so few people want to spend so much time and effort to create a game that is something special and then have it torn apart by unappreciative players who go off on tangent of how DMs are bad if they don't follow every player whim.

Not to be unsympathetic, but … whine much? Life is tough. People are stupid. Socializing is hard. These things happen, and responding to them with aggression and autocratic demands for one's own way is not a solution.

DMs should not be doormats, but neither should they slap down an addition to the party unilaterally, or unilaterally take control of how PCs react or think. It's a give-and-take relationship, not a dictatorship in either direction.


So it appears that the experiences of actual DMs don't matter, the experiences of players in groups where DMPCs have been used without issue don't matter, and... well, anybody who doesn't agree with anti-DMPC opinion and rhetoric doesn't matter.

There are experiences from DMs and players that support either side; if anything, there are more experiences that urge caution than those that suggest it's a good idea. Do those not count?

Actually, rather than a simple "for-or-against", it might be useful to consider experiences in one of three categories: positive, neutral, or negative. I would venture to suppose there are more negative experiences (or perhaps merely louder or worse) than there are neutral; there are not a great many experiences that were significantly positive, although there have been some. That is the main reason I personally am uneasy about the practice, since I have no personal experience: it seems to lead to bad ends distressingly often, and too seldom result in anything particularly good, which suggests that while it may not be inherently a bad idea, it's one with a lot of pitfalls.

[The Insanity]

I had very little bad experience with DMPCs. And that was when I was DMing for the first time.

[Zman]

Actually, rather than a simple "for-or-against", it might be useful to consider experiences in one of three categories: positive, neutral, or negative. I would venture to suppose there are more negative experiences (or perhaps merely louder or worse) than there are neutral; there are not a great many experiences that were significantly positive, although there have been some. That is the main reason I personally am uneasy about the practice, since I have no personal experience: it seems to lead to bad ends distressingly often, and too seldom result in anything particularly good, which suggests that while it may not be inherently a bad idea, it's one with a lot of pitfalls.

I truly believe that the negative experiences are more powerful and more likely to be forcefully reiterated.

I know in my experience the worst problem any of my groups have had with DMPCs was that the DM had difficulty RPing them as often as they should, this has not been a problem in PBP. I have many more problems with DMs introducing Godlike NPCs, those all powerful beings that boss the party around, can't die, solve problems on a whim, etc. The problems with threads like this, as many people can lump a DMPC and a Godlike NPC together, and some bad DMs blurr those lines.

If a DM builds a DMPC with the same rules as the PCs, does not optimize beyond the group's level, and plays them with appropriate knowledge they can be a wonderful and fantastic addition to a game.


To those who say it is purely DM EGO, well who are you to tell others how they enjoy the game is wrong, especially when the game is enjoyable and successful by all parties? If I didn't get to play a DMPC, I would not DM, and there would be good games that never happened, and none of them ever had a problem with DMPCs, ever. Many more problems were had with simple NPCs, metagaming, powergaming, rule abuse, and player optimization.

People keep saying, its never a good idea, and in my experience, its never been a bad idea. Can't we both be right, situation depending?

[The Insanity]

Can't we both be right, situation depending?
Well, if you say "never", then you can't, regardless of situation.

[Zman]

Well, if you say "never", then you can't, regardless of situation.

True, it would require those opposing DMPCs completely to conceded however small the chance it can be done successfully. I know I have not said its always a good idea. If fact, I feel those who say it can be done, and can be done well are not using absolutely, while those opposing DMPCs are very absolute in their stances.

[Talya]

With rotating DMs, they're kind of necessary.

[zephyrkinetic]

At my table, it is either myself or my wife who DMs. As a result, I eventually get fed up and have to play, even if it's reacting to my own plots.

I think the catch is to make sure you apply the same rules of metagaming you would to anyone else. I only play what my character can do or know, and nothing else. I always throw in encounters and events that are built to challenge the entire party (whether at once or one at a time), and I don't exclude my DMPC (when I have one) when building those.

I will say that any DMPC I play is almost always the same character, or at least a member of the same established society out of Waterdeep/Skullport, so the (regular) players will recognize what's going on with the DMPC at the get-go. Sometimes they call it as soon as I say we're playing on the coast. xD

But all thhings considered, it's a great way for the DM to feel like more than a babysitter, as long as s/he's able to do it without being a d-bag.

[KorbeltheReader]

Does anyone else find that DMPCs that aren't Mary Sues tend to die a lot? I've found that PCs just sort of treat the DMPC as more expendable than a PC, so when a battle gets fierce, the DMPC is more likely to be sacrificed to save the PCs. Also, GMs generally feel less bad about sacrificing a DMPC than killing a PC.

Not saying this isn't perfectly reasonable behavior on their part, just saying I've seen it enough times to notice a pattern.

[Talya]

Does anyone else find that DMPCs that aren't Mary Sues tend to die a lot? I've found that PCs just sort of treat the DMPC as more expendable than a PC, so when a battle gets fierce, the DMPC is more likely to be sacrificed to save the PCs. Also, GMs generally feel less bad about sacrificing a DMPC than killing a PC.

Not saying this isn't perfectly reasonable behavior on their part, just saying I've seen it enough times to notice a pattern.

Absolutely.

[TypoNinja]

Does anyone else find that DMPCs that aren't Mary Sues tend to die a lot? I've found that PCs just sort of treat the DMPC as more expendable than a PC, so when a battle gets fierce, the DMPC is more likely to be sacrificed to save the PCs. Also, GMs generally feel less bad about sacrificing a DMPC than killing a PC.

Not saying this isn't perfectly reasonable behavior on their part, just saying I've seen it enough times to notice a pattern.

Yes. my characters rarely die, and most of those at levels where a res is quick and easy, I'm big on being prepared.

The one DMPC I ever ran, after the game hit about 13-15th level, The bastard just couldn't stay alive once the save or dies started coming out.

The PC's weren't deliberately leaving him out to die, and he wasn't a front line fighter so it wasn't like he was always up front and eating it, he just seemed to have really terrible luck.

[Chester]

Here's a thought: the type of PC really impacts how well it works as a DMPC.

My buddy's Bard / Rogue (as he role plays him) really works cohesively whether he is DMing or not, and my Dread Necromancer ends up uncharacteristically following the party's lead when I DM. When I'm not DMing, I have fun with the intimidation etc. When I do DM, I try to shut up. It takes something away, I think.

Could be that I'm just not that skilled, but . . .

[MukkTB]

My group rotates DMs, running a module each. The hardest part is that instead of one person laying down the rules as word of god, everyone has to agree on the interpretation of RAW, or if we want to use RAI or houserules.

However we have never had a problem with needing to have someone DMPC. We generally start a module with the PCs journeying to the site of the adventure. We generally end a module when the adventure at the site is finished and our group is travelling back into the sunset and towards home. For plot purposes (and the fact that we're normally really tired) we don't actually play the journey home. We just assume that everyone makes it back and nothing interesting happens. This normally takes 2 or 3 sessions. The character of the DM at the time normally stays home.

Actually I lie a little bit. A few times we have had to consult the character of the DM about things before setting off. Twice the character of the DM at the time gave the adventure we were on to the rest of the party as a quest while they were 'occupied with other things.'

[Blackhawk748]

Ill toss my couple of cents in here. My group has DMPCs all the time. Im usually DMing and gods damn it sometimes i just wanna play. Though i will admit most of my DMPCs have been Fighters, Barbarians, or a Blaster Sorc (which is my usual play style anyway).

Hell right now we are doing an entirely character driven campaign in Ravenloft. We have a party of six and every quest we rotate DMs, except every other quest i wind up DMing or at least DMing the point in between quests, which is kinda driving me nuts as i want to roleplay my Bard/Warblade/Warchanter. Hes got a great backstory and a freaking love interest whose father he needs to impress, but i never get to because i am DMing everyone else's roleplaying.

So theres the other side of the coin, sometimes the DM wants to DMPC, but rarely does he get to interact with the world he made outside of stabbing things and that can suck.

[TypoNinja]

. Im usually DMing and gods damn it sometimes i just wanna play.

This came up in my group. We have one guy who was the DM the vast majority of the time, and he wanted a chance to play a character.

Our solution was to start rotating games. So we now have 4 games in a weekly rotation so each one is played once a month. Different DM.

This avoids all the downsides of trying to divide your attention as a DM on a PC, having your players do nothing while its your turn in combat (did I mention that attempting to RP an interaction between a DMPC and an NPC is just plain weird?), all that crap. But still gives everybody a chance to be a PC as well as a DM.

And here's the thing, while I have sympathy for the "I wanna Play too at some point" feeling, I truly do believe that trying to do both at once is a mistake for a variety of reasons, and if you have chosen to DM, you should not try to also squeeze being a PC in there at the same time.

You will degrade the quality of the game you are running and the only benefits are seen by one person, this seems really selfish to me in a group activity. I don't care how awesome a DM you are, picking up extra duties will take up your time and attention, on things that are just for you.

[Coidzor]

Hes got a great backstory and a freaking love interest whose father he needs to impress, but i never get to because i am DMing everyone else's roleplaying.

In Ravenloft? :smallconfused: That's the weird thing about this post.

[BWR]

In Ravenloft? :smallconfused: That's the weird thing about this post.

Oh, that's just dandy in Ravenloft. If you can't think how to twist that to something nasty you aren't running the setting right.

[Gnaeus]

True, it would require those opposing DMPCs completely to conceded however small the chance it can be done successfully. I know I have not said its always a good idea. If fact, I feel those who say it can be done, and can be done well are not using absolutely, while those opposing DMPCs are very absolute in their stances.

I would not say that it can never be done successfully.

I would say, based on personal experience, that a DMPC, well played by a good DM, will always be an unjustifiable risk of an end to both campaigns and friendships. I have seen it take months before it reaches that point. Doesn't matter. It is still a ticking campaign bomb with a timer counting numbers in an alien script.

And to people who say that the DM has the right to play too... The DM is playing. He is playing the most important role in the game. If being a DM isn't fun for you, then being the DM is playing wrong, and you are already a bad DM.

[SassyQuatch]

And to people who say that the DM has the right to play too... The DM is playing. He is playing the most important role in the game. If being a DM isn't fun for you, then being the DM is playing wrong, and you are already a bad DM.
So a chef decides to have a meal for some friends. He speaks with all of these friends and then helps to craft a meal theme that everyone is interested in and a lot of interesting dishes for each person.

Some of the food is well received, some is rejected as bad out of hand, some people just pour out a bottle of ketchup on the meal because when the prepared meal that they wanted finally comes around it is considered bland.

Afterwards one of the attendees pulls out a bag of chips. The chef asks, "Hey, man. I've been working hard here for days on this, you think I could have one of those chips?" To which everyone responds "Look at all this food you made for us!" "Stop being so greedy! This is ours!" "Why are you always whining about what you want?!"

Yeah. The DM having the most important role in the game doesn't mean that it is satisfying, especially when players are very often uncooperative. It really isn't a good argument at all (despite it being used so often), because the DM works hard to craft worlds and contingencies and all sorts of things which end up getting only a few seconds of play or are cast away altogether. Performing a high stressed but necessary activity day after day doesn't somehow make a person automatically feel good, especially if your actions are repeatedly viewed as being valueless.

So the DM decides to ask whether or not he could get the chance to play the easy part of the game. The fun part where a few minutes of character preparation can create a lasting and joyful experience. It seems kind of rude to continue insisting that the almost always hardest working person in the room can't have a chance to share in some of the meal game that he gruelingly created while working over a hot stove on notepads, tablets, graph paper, etc. over extended periods of time.


Which will once again be most likely be interpreted as whining by some posters. Because asking for some small consideration once in a while is somehow interpreted as being tyrannical, always having to have your own way, and a display of massive ego and bad DMing. :smallannoyed:

[TuggyNE]

And to people who say that the DM has the right to play too... The DM is playing. He is playing the most important role in the game. If being a DM isn't fun for you, then being the DM is playing wrong, and you are already a bad DM.

Though not necessarily through any fault of your own.

[TypoNinja]

So a chef decides to have a meal for some friends. He speaks with all of these friends and then helps to craft a meal theme that everyone is interested in and a lot of interesting dishes for each person.

Some of the food is well received, some is rejected as bad out of hand, some people just pour out a bottle of ketchup on the meal because when the prepared meal that they wanted finally comes around it is considered bland.

Afterwards one of the attendees pulls out a bag of chips. The chef asks, "Hey, man. I've been working hard here for days on this, you think I could have one of those chips?" To which everyone responds "Look at all this food you made for us!" "Stop being so greedy! This is ours!" "Why are you always whining about what you want?!"

Yeah. The DM having the most important role in the game doesn't mean that it is satisfying, especially when players are very often uncooperative. It really isn't a good argument at all (despite it being used so often), because the DM works hard to craft worlds and contingencies and all sorts of things which end up getting only a few seconds of play or are cast away altogether. Performing a high stressed but necessary activity day after day doesn't somehow make a person automatically feel good, especially if your actions are repeatedly viewed as being valueless.

So the DM decides to ask whether or not he could get the chance to play the easy part of the game. The fun part where a few minutes of character preparation can create a lasting and joyful experience. It seems kind of rude to continue insisting that the almost always hardest working person in the room can't have a chance to share in some of the meal game that he gruelingly created while working over a hot stove on notepads, tablets, graph paper, etc. over extended periods of time.


Which will once again be most likely be interpreted as whining by some posters. Because asking for some small consideration once in a while is somehow interpreted as being tyrannical, always having to have your own way, and a display of massive ego and bad DMing. :smallannoyed:

Your analogy is all kinds of wrong, instead try; At several points while preparing an elaborate meal you have promised your friends already, you decide to stop and have them watch you eat something, while they sit there waiting upon the food you promised them. Then once they get their food you interrupt them every so often so they can listen to you tell yourself how great the food you just made was.

And you still just come off as a "me me me" whine. "I wanna play too, why can't I do X , I wanna Y." Also it still doesn't touch on the issue that you wanting to shoehorn another PC in will degrade everyone elses game experiences.

DMing requires a lot of work, more work than playing a PC. It consumes your time at the table, when your players are taking their turn the rest of the players have a chance to prepare their stuff, be ready for their turn. The DM doesn't have such a luxury, you are dealing with whatever PC is active is doing. Worse, if you have your own PC, all your actual Players get to sit there and watch you play with yourself, dealing with your actions from both perspectives at a time. So you as a DM are taking up time by stopping DMing, to play your PC, then you spend more time doing the DM actions for what your PC did, turning the people you told you'd run a game for into spectators.

I don't care how good a DM you may or may not be, you have a finite amount of attention (and time). Spending time and attention on yourself will degrade the quality of your game. And as a DM I would hope that the quality of your game is something you value highly. In case you forgot you already decided on that role at the table, if playing is more important to you than running your own game the best you can it might be time to reconsider your decision to DM.

I ran a DMPC once, for a game that only had 2 players. I would not willingly repeat the experience, my own PC just ended up being more things I had to track, more things I had to do, and more paper on the table in front of me when I already had plenty of sheets of things to juggle. And every time it was my PC's turn I felt rushed and slightly guilty because I had my players watching me roll dice, and do things that had no bearing on them.

It was a lot of extra work and hassle, and I felt like I was being a poor host at the same time.

Honestly it baffles me that people seem so set on playing their own PC while they DM. How is it fun to you? Do you just not care what your players think? How is the extra work not a complete hassle? How do you actually play a Character without taking the spotlight off your players?

[SassyQuatch]

So many absolutes. So many completely wrong absolutes (as demonstrated from many [ignored] experiences in this very thread). And more insults and personal attacks too.

Well, ignore list gets updated yet again.

[TuggyNE]

So many absolutes. So many completely wrong absolutes (as demonstrated from many [ignored] experiences in this very thread). And more insults and personal attacks too.

Well, ignore list gets updated yet again.

So it would seem. :smallamused:

[Togo]

Is a DMPC really so bad?

The answer come back - Yes it is bad.

But somehow this answer is selfish?

It's going to cause problems. If not having one also causes problems, then you need decide which one to do. But the fact that you desperately need or want to play one doesn't change the answer to the question.

[137beth]

Does anyone else find that DMPCs that aren't Mary Sues tend to die a lot? I've found that PCs just sort of treat the DMPC as more expendable than a PC, so when a battle gets fierce, the DMPC is more likely to be sacrificed to save the PCs. Also, GMs generally feel less bad about sacrificing a DMPC than killing a PC.

Not saying this isn't perfectly reasonable behavior on their part, just saying I've seen it enough times to notice a pattern.

Yes, I have noticed DMPCs seem to have a strangely high mortality rate.
Much more so than PCs:smallamused:.
I generally don't use them, but back when I was a player the DMPCs were always the first to die.

[BWR]

Not really. PCs tend to die more often because we are generally more dangerous to the opposition than any DMPC that happens to tag along.

[TypoNinja]

Yes, I have noticed DMPCs seem to have a strangely high mortality rate.
Much more so than PCs:smallamused:.
I generally don't use them, but back when I was a player the DMPCs were always the first to die.

I think its because we always feel a little bit bad if we kill a players PC, so the "random" death caused by whatever just happens to hit the DMPC.

[Eldonauran]

I run a game with 5 to 6 players so I don't have much time for DMPCs. When I first got my group together, it was only 3 players, two that were brand new and one that was a 2nd edition veteran learning the 3.5/Pathfinder rules. I had a few NPCs join the group for short periods and leave permentally after a while. I did start them out with a DMPC.

This was a gestalt game, one side was a character class and the other was an undead progression from Libris Mortis. We had a human 'vampire spawn' wizard and and gnome 'mummy' warlock in the first session. I threw in a goblin 'wight' multiclassed barbarian / rogue / alchemist (we started at level 3), to assist with traps and other stuff. We eventually picked up a half-drow 'morhg' barbarian and lost the wizard, only to replace with a pixie 'vampire spawn' witch. This game ran all the way to level 20, without loss of any other players.

Somewhere along the lines, the goblin I created earned the player's (and the PC's) endearing love and they would not be separated from him. Perhaps it was the bat-sh!t crazy, pyromaniac loon I played him out to be. He was really useless in battle, save for the bombs and occasional flank. I swear he was the luckiest goblin in the universe. (I roll combat stuff in the open so there is no question of fairness)


Just, be careful with DMPCs. I can easily see how bad things can turn if not used correctly. You are the storyteller, not a character.

[Jergmo]

I'm dropping into this thread late, but I wanted to post my experience with DMPCs.

Every campaign I've ever played in has had a DMPC, and to this day as the primary DM among all my friends, I have had a DMPC regardless of the amount of people playing. Now, it's become a necessity due to schedules limiting our playing group. I've learned a few things about them, and what makes for a good one.

There are a few rules I follow:
1. The DMPC is not there to provide answers to every question.
2. The DMPC is not there to railroad the party.
3. The DMPC is not there to overshadow the party.
3. The DMPC is there to add to the depth of RP in the campaign.
4. The DMPC is there to complement the abilities of the party.

Most recently the players in my campaign are focused around martial abilities. Therefore, the DMPC is there to heal, buff, and otherwise provide bonuses to said martial abilities.

That said, reviewing some of the hateful commentary above and my apparent status as a bad, selfish, whiny DM... maybe there's a critical difference with the fact that I play via text and have an organized set of wordpads with statblocks and a half dozen Google Chrome tabs compared to physical sheets and dice.

[Gnaeus]

So a chef decides to have a meal for some friends. He speaks with all of these friends and then helps to craft a meal theme that everyone is interested in and a lot of interesting dishes for each person.

Some of the food is well received, some is rejected as bad out of hand, some people just pour out a bottle of ketchup on the meal because when the prepared meal that they wanted finally comes around it is considered bland.

Afterwards one of the attendees pulls out a bag of chips. The chef asks, "Hey, man. I've been working hard here for days on this, you think I could have one of those chips?" To which everyone responds "Look at all this food you made for us!" "Stop being so greedy! This is ours!" "Why are you always whining about what you want?!"

Yeah. The DM having the most important role in the game doesn't mean that it is satisfying, especially when players are very often uncooperative. It really isn't a good argument at all (despite it being used so often), because the DM works hard to craft worlds and contingencies and all sorts of things which end up getting only a few seconds of play or are cast away altogether. Performing a high stressed but necessary activity day after day doesn't somehow make a person automatically feel good, especially if your actions are repeatedly viewed as being valueless.

So the DM decides to ask whether or not he could get the chance to play the easy part of the game. The fun part where a few minutes of character preparation can create a lasting and joyful experience. It seems kind of rude to continue insisting that the almost always hardest working person in the room can't have a chance to share in some of the meal game that he gruelingly created while working over a hot stove on notepads, tablets, graph paper, etc. over extended periods of time.


Which will once again be most likely be interpreted as whining by some posters. Because asking for some small consideration once in a while is somehow interpreted as being tyrannical, always having to have your own way, and a display of massive ego and bad DMing. :smallannoyed:

Then the answer would be to ask someone else to cook dinner, maybe with some advice or help. The answer would not be to pour some LSD into the food, or quietly have a bowel movement into the soup, figuring that that would spice things up and maybe be funny, without worrying about the consequences. See, I can metaphor too!

[Prehysterical]

For the purpose of clarification, what is the definitive difference between a DMPC and a powerful NPC assigned to the party by the DM? As far as the party is concerned, are they not the same thing?

Not trying to be cheeky here. I'm actually having trouble distinguishing the two.

[Togo]

An NPC is a character in the scene/story. A DMPC is the same, except that it also, in some way, shares qualities with PCs. This may be their role in the story, their role in the party, or their role within the group of players, and may include more 'screen time', a role in party decision making, more expectation of character interaction, events centred on that character, and so on.

In short, it's an NPC that is treated in some way as part of the party, and is played by the DM as if it were a player character

[Zman]

For the purpose of clarification, what is the definitive difference between a DMPC and a powerful NPC assigned to the party by the DM? As far as the party is concerned, are they not the same thing?

Not trying to be cheeky here. I'm actually having trouble distinguishing the two.

"powerful NPC"

A DMPC usally conforms to all of the character building guidelines as the PCs, same level, xp, sources available, etc and gains an equal share of the XP earned.

NPCs do not follow any of those guidelines.

[TuggyNE]

That said, reviewing some of the hateful commentary above and my apparent status as a bad, selfish, whiny DM...

Don't misunderstand: you are not a bad, selfish, whiny DM merely because you use DM's-PCs. I might consider the tradeoff unwise and largely unnecessary, but it is perfectly possible to be misguided (as I'd consider it) and still do a perfectly passable job of DMing; the dangers, while substantial, are not guaranteed, and luck or skill or quirks of the group can compensate to a considerable degree.

Instead, you are a bad, selfish, whiny DM if you are unwilling to consider relinquishing your DM's-PC(s) for the sake of your players, because you like them too much and don't want to give them up. If you have, indeed, considered the issue and decided (preferably with your players' involvement) that for your game the risks are acceptable and there should be no substantial downside, then that's a different matter.

TL/DR: Foisting (S-)DM's-PCs or G-NPCs is bad.


For the purpose of clarification, what is the definitive difference between a DMPC and a powerful NPC assigned to the party by the DM? As far as the party is concerned, are they not the same thing?

I went into some length here, but in brief*: A DM's-PC is a character recognized by the whole group as the DM's personal character; it has the same plot relevance, ability to influence party decisions, power level, and so forth as any other PC, or possibly more. A G-NPC or S-DM's-PC, on the other hand, is not admitted as such. A G-NPC generally does not adventure much with the party, but does take on a strong leadership role most of the time, and is more powerful in some or all ways than a PC, while an S-DM's-PC tends to sneak aboard the party with little or no opportunity for the party or group to reject their presence, and is often stronger than the rest of the party.

In either case, the most important difference is whether the group is able to talk frankly with the DM about inclusion and perhaps say "no, I don't think he'll work out", followed by the amount of spotlight time the character commands through plot or combat potence.


* Ohohoho.

[Prehysterical]

"powerful NPC"

A DMPC usally conforms to all of the character building guidelines as the PCs, same level, xp, sources available, etc and gains an equal share of the XP earned.

NPCs do not follow any of those guidelines.

Ah, my mistake. Your definition makes sense. I am afraid that my own experience bled into that question a little. What do you call it when the DM has a character that follows the PC guidelines and is the same level, but is given special items or abilities that the other PCs would never be able to earn?

A real life example, just so we are not constantly dealing in hypotheticals:

Last year, I was involved in a Iron Kingdoms game that was held at my university. It's the RPG component to the Warmachine tabletop game. We had a level 1 party that eventually progressed onto level 3. The DM had a DMPC named Harkov, who was a Khadoran officer-turned-highwayman. He leveled up with the PCs and, on his own, was no more powerful than the rest of us. However, the DM gave to Harkov, for his own personal use, a Juggernaut warjack named Champion. Keep in mind that only a couple of career options give you the option of starting with a 'jack at all, and even then those are only laborjacks. A Juggernaut is a heavy warjack, which only high-level NPCs would even have access to.

During our last mission, we tracked down this bandit lord who had been giving everyone in the area a lot of grief. Since the base he was hiding was an underground bunker, Champion couldn't follow us down. Much fun was had as we operated for once without a walking tank to just mow everything down for us, even if my character almost had his head shot off. As we went deeper, we found a couple of crates. One was empty except for straw and the other contained a suit of Man-o-War steam-powered armor.

It was obvious to us, even in-character, that our target had apparently decided to field-test his latest acquisition. OOC, I knew that a couple of us ran the risk of dying trying to take this guy on while wearing such a powerful item. Unless, of course, someone else wore the other suit of armor.

Three guesses who that ended up being. I apparently wasn't aware that every Khadoran soldier is trained in the use of specialist armor.

Okay, passive-aggressive rant over. Now for an actual contribution to the discussion. Are DMPCs always bad? No. In fact, if most of the players sitting at the table are either new to the system or new to role-playing in general, having a DMPC helps gives the party some direction and allows them to more efficiently follow the story. However, there are circumstances where it would be better not to use a DMPC.

1. A large number of players already. I've noticed in PBP this isn't as big of a problem, but at an actual table where there might be only a certain amount of time to play, that's just one more PC whose actions and reactions have to be run through before the party can progress.
2. His only purpose is to save the party. I've run into this numerous times and it ruins any kind of tension that the game has. I understand that some people don't like having their characters killed, but it kind of spoils the fun when you get into a hairy situation and just know that the paladin/jack marshal/space marine captain will be there to bail you out. In fact, there have been several occasions where, given thought after-the-fact, I realized that the encounter was designed so that without the intervention of the DMPC, it would have resulted in a TPK. And that sucks.

After reading through this thread, perhaps it is not the DMPC itself which can be a problem. It's the DMing practices that it allows are what rub some people the wrong way.

[Zman]

Ah, my mistake. Your definition makes sense. I am afraid that my own experience bled into that question a little. What do you call it when the DM has a character that follows the PC guidelines and is the same level, but is given special items or abilities that the other PCs would never be able to earn?



After reading through this thread, perhaps it is not the DMPC itself which can be a problem. It's the DMing practices that it allows are what rub some people the wrong way.

It's called the same thing if the DM gave such boons to any single character eluding the rest of the party, Bad DMing. What you experienced is a power mad DM living vicariously through his DMPC, which is never a good thing.

In your example, a simple NPC that always had those options would have caused the same problems.

Your last comment has it right on the money and I completely agree. DMPCs aren't bad, DMs can be bad. A bad DM with a DMPC is going to be a bad DMPC. There is a temptation there, but good DMs won't fall into it.

DMPCs that play by the same rules as the other characters and are played with appropriate knowledge, appropriate level of optimization(or slightly lower), and follow the same metagaming restrictions as the rest of the party are not likely to cause trouble, so long as the DM is competent and capable of handling a DMPC. It is easier in PBPs or small group IRL games.

I'm of the mind that if a DM screws up a DMPC, they are likely to screw up NPCs as well, especially powerful ones. I've had many games screwed over by DMs having Powerful NPCs railroad the party, or steal the show, and I've not experienced a DMPC causing party trouble. I've also seen countless more games destroyed by Optimization than I have seen even troubled by DMPCs.

Some will say its always a bad idea, they deal in absolutes and are by definition wrong. DMPCs must be handled with care, like to many other things a DM has access to do. If the game is not cooperative, each doing their party to aid the enjoyment of the others, the game is in rough shape to begin with.


DMPCs...

Should follow all restriction placed on PCs...
Should follow the same metagaming restrictions...
Should follow the same optimization level...

Should not be given any special treatment...
Should not steal the show...
Should not have all the answers...

[killem2]

And to people who say that the DM has the right to play too... The DM is playing. He is playing the most important role in the game. If being a DM isn't fun for you, then being the DM is playing wrong, and you are already a bad DM.

you are wrong. thanks

[Coidzor]

you are wrong. thanks

If someone doesn't enjoy being DM but is DMing anyway, something has already gone fairly wrong to begin with.

[Samm]

If someone doesn't enjoy being DM but is DMing anyway, something has already gone fairly wrong to begin with.

I'm not really sure what he wanted to achieve with that post. I mean, if you're doing something you don't enjoy for "Fun" then there is a problem.

[Coidzor]

I'm not really sure what he wanted to achieve with that post. I mean, if you're doing something you don't enjoy for "Fun" then there is a problem.

Certainly there's room to disagree with the premise that wanting a DMPC = not having fun being DM, but there's also going to be cases where that's true (at least, IIRC, several posters have gone and admitted something along those lines, though I may be thinking more of past threads along this general line of inquiry), even if the truest truth is something beyond what anyone is consciously aware of.

[Chester]

Certainly there's room to disagree with the premise that wanting a DMPC = not having fun being DM, but there's also going to be cases where that's true (at least, IIRC, several posters have gone and admitted something along those lines, though I may be thinking more of past threads along this general line of inquiry), even if the truest truth is something beyond what anyone is consciously aware of.

I wouldn't say that I'm not having fun.

I'd say that as my character / PC gains in level, I'm finding myself forgetting about things because I'm focused on running the adventure.

I think I found a solution to my problem: when I'm DMing, I'm going to keep my PC out of it. My buddy will run a few solo adventures so I can have an opportunity to play my PC.

I think I've been good about keeping my PC out of the spotlight; with only three of us, it's easy to come up with adventures that allow everyone to shine.

[Samm]

Certainly there's room to disagree with the premise that wanting a DMPC = not having fun being DM, but there's also going to be cases where that's true (at least, IIRC, several posters have gone and admitted something along those lines, though I may be thinking more of past threads along this general line of inquiry), even if the truest truth is something beyond what anyone is consciously aware of.

In that case in an ideal world, they should either find a way to make DMing fun again (without resorting to making a player character), or not DM anymore.

[Brendanicus]

I can understand why people hate DMPC's so much, but they can, admittedly rarely, be great additions to a campaign.

In the last campaign I was in, the party ranger just became eligable for an animal companion. Since my DM knew she loved Kobolds but was playing an elf, he gave her a Kobold cohort instead of an animal companion.

Meepo the Kobold's transition from class feature to DMPC began as the ranger's player, a very shy person, let our DM control the cohort on his own. The result was my favorite NPC of the campaign.

Meepo was a multiclass Fighter with a one level Rogue dip. In combat, he'd handle any cannon fodder we didn't feel like dealing with by sneaking up on them and then eviscerating them with crit after crit (war pick with 4x critical damage, and a few fudged dice rolls. I didn't mind). He had a tenedency to run off and do his own thing for long periods of time (sometimes during combat), only to reemerge with some devious new trick including improvised explosives, a small squad of Kobold allies, and other fun stuff.

He would end each encounter covered in gore and screaming. This was hilarious as Meepo was usually mute and playful outside of combat. He quickly became the party mascot and pure awesome.

I guess the big difference between Meepo and most DMPC's is that Meepo was an ad-hoc addition made up halfway through the campaign, while most DMPC's are made to fit in with the rest of the world, and hence be important to it in some way.

EDIT: It also didn;t hurt that Meepo was two levels lower than the average party member, and also was extremely unoptimized, even for a very low-op campaign of total noobs to tabletop RPG's.

[TypoNinja]

I can understand why people hate DMPC's so much, but they can, admittedly rarely, be great additions to a campaign.

In the last campaign I was in, the party ranger just became eligable for an animal companion. Since my DM knew she loved Kobolds but was playing an elf, he gave her a Kobold cohort instead of an animal companion.

Meepo the Kobold's transition from class feature to DMPC began as the ranger's player, a very shy person, let our DM control the cohort on his own. The result was my favorite NPC of the campaign.

Meepo was a multiclass Fighter with a one level Rogue dip. In combat, he'd handle any cannon fodder we didn't feel like dealing with by sneaking up on them and then eviscerating them with crit after crit (war pick with 4x critical damage, and a few fudged dice rolls. I didn't mind). He had a tenedency to run off and do his own thing for long periods of time (sometimes during combat), only to reemerge with some devious new trick including improvised explosives, a small squad of Kobold allies, and other fun stuff.

He would end each encounter covered in gore and screaming. This was hilarious as Meepo was usually mute and playful outside of combat. He quickly became the party mascot and pure awesome.

I guess the big difference between Meepo and most DMPC's is that Meepo was an ad-hoc addition made up halfway through the campaign, while most DMPC's are made to fit in with the rest of the world, and hence be important to it in some way.

EDIT: It also didn;t hurt that Meepo was two levels lower than the average party member, and also was extremely unoptimized, even for a very low-op campaign of total noobs to tabletop RPG's.

Its not that they can't be a good addition, its that it seems (admittedly from anecdotal evidence) that its easier to do wrong than right. Add that to the fact that even when done well there are still serious downsides, and you get the default position of "Bad Idea" whenever somebody asks about it.

[TuggyNE]

Its not that they can't be a good addition, its that it seems (admittedly from anecdotal evidence) that its easier to do wrong than right. Add that to the fact that even when done well there are still serious downsides, and you get the default position of "Bad Idea" whenever somebody asks about it.

Put another way, the table of possibilities seems to go something like this:
{table=head]Circumstances|Bad DM|Decent DM|Awesome DM
Lousy|THE HORROR!|No please!|Ehhhhh…
Fair|No please!|Ugh, why?|Pretty tolerable
Great|Ugh, why?|Tolerable|Kinda cool mostly[/table]
where "circumstances" includes group patterns, the type of game, and so forth.

Under ideal circumstances with the best DMs, a DM's-PC, carefully handled, can add something to the game and avoid essentially all the problems. Most DMs are not that good, and most circumstances are not that ideal, which tends to mean that the best you can usually hope for is that the DM's-PC doesn't actively make things worse.

[The Insanity]

Sometimes hate is just irrational.

[TypoNinja]

Put another way, the table of possibilities seems to go something like this:
{table=head]Circumstances|Bad DM|Decent DM|Awesome DM
Lousy|THE HORROR!|No please!|Ehhhhh…
Fair|No please!|Ugh, why?|Pretty tolerable
Great|Ugh, why?|Tolerable|Kinda cool mostly[/table]
where "circumstances" includes group patterns, the type of game, and so forth.

Under ideal circumstances with the best DMs, a DM's-PC, carefully handled, can add something to the game and avoid essentially all the problems. Most DMs are not that good, and most circumstances are not that ideal, which tends to mean that the best you can usually hope for is that the DM's-PC doesn't actively make things worse.

Its not even that, no matter how its pulled off its still extra time and effort on the DM's part (and running a game isnt exactly light in the time and effort departments to begin with), and worse its time the DM spends at the table, on himself.

No matter how perfectly you pull off the DMPC in other respects, you are still stuck with this massive downside.

[Jgosse]

The one time I ran a DMPC I had a party of inexperienced players so I gave them a body guard. A half ogre barbarian that was the same ecl as the party and while he could more then hold his own in a fight he was severely lacking in any other aspect. The only issue I had was the time I one shot the young dragon black dragon that was supposed to be a challenge for the whole party, so I had 2 or 3 more pop out of the swamp.

[Meth In a Mine]

The one time I ran a DMPC I had a party of inexperienced players so I gave them a body guard. A half ogre barbarian that was the same ecl as the party and while he could more then hold his own in a fight he was severely lacking in any other aspect. The only issue I had was the time I one shot the young dragon black dragon that was supposed to be a challenge for the whole party, so I had 2 or 3 more pop out of the swamp.
This is how a DMPC should be. just as a helper, who can leave/die/depart for a another reason whenever he is no longer needed. Nonetheless, some DMs just don't know how to let well enough alone and go on to make their DMPC a demigod rather than a helper who performs services for the PCs, not do it all him/herself.

Cheers

[Togo]

I've had terrible results with an awesome DM and great circumstances.

It's really nothing to with skill.

[Thurbane]

I personally don't mind the idea of a DMPC, especially if the party is too small, or the DM never gets to be a player.

The two biggest tricks IMHO are:
1.) Not having your DMPC outshine the others.
2.) Not having the DMPC use meta-knowledge of the adventure or campaign.

I would recommend having the DMPC focus on a support/buffing role, like a Marshal, Dragon Shaman or even Healer.