DMPC, good or bad?

[Yael]

/thread.

What are your thoughs on the DMPC factor?

A DM trying to adventure with his friends into his own world. This seems a bit overpowered and lessens fun when the DMPC outshines the party because of excess of info and unexpected metagame. Maybe by accident, but how do this affect your games?

[Honest Tiefling]

I really dislike them, but I've had bad experiences with them, including a super annoying one that got turned into a demi-god...

However, in smaller games (1-2 players) I could more feasibly see a love interest, a patron or another type of helpful NPC who could potentially be there for the battles. With a smaller number, there are more niches and more time for the NPC/PC dynamic. However, I would still lean to the idea that the PC has a great deal of say on the matter, within reason. They cannot make their patron pay for their hookers and blow without doing something worth rewarding, but they can give a DM suggestions on a patron that might work as well as refuse to obey one dangled in front of them.

[EisenKreutzer]

I never saw the fun in it. I've been a GM most of my roleplaying career, and I've only done it once or twice. To me, handling the NPCs and surprising my players with the plot is much more fun.

[aleucard]

It's VERY dependent on the DM, but in general it's amazingly easy to screw up, and even when the DM doesn't the players may not appreciate such a thing. Can be useful with new players and a smaller party, though.

[ellindsey]

I strongly try to avoid having a DMPC. It's enough work (and fun) just running the world and all the NPCs, I don't need to try and be a player too. Unfortunately, in the game I'm currently running, the players took a liking to a one-shot NPC fighter I threw in as a plot hook, gave him a sword and insisted he join the party. I'm still looking for an excuse to kill him off without it being forced.

[...]

Well, I once played with an OP supermonk (amazing, I know) DMPC that outshined all of the other characters and was a living railroad to boot.It was really fun.

[The Insanity]

Please, not this again...

A DMPC is neither. It's the way you use him that's good or bad. Just like Optimization. It's a tool.

[Palanan]

These DMPC threads usually come up every month or two, and the grand majority of the Playground seems dead set against the concept.

I'm one of the few who aren't, since I've had good experiences with DMPCs, beginning with my first DM for 3.5. He put so much personality into his DMPC that we couldn't help but like the character, and he was handy to have around while still letting the PCs occupy center stage.

[Yael]

So... As a tl;dr for this thread:

DMPC good for first-timers and to help to get along with the game.

DMPC bad any other time?

[EisenKreutzer]

So... As a tl;dr for this thread:

DMPC good for first-timers and to help to get along with the game.

DMPC bad any other time?

It's not inherently good or bad, thats not the issue. The issue is that if handled improperly, it can be un-fun. If the GM has a PC in the game, and is only using that PC to hog the spotlight, win everything and be the main character of the story, then it becomes a problem.

This may sound like something that almost never happens, but it's surprisingly common with DMPCs. Many DMs don't even realise they are doing it. To them, they are just making a cool story, and they don't notice that the players become an audience for their one-man DMPC show.

[aleucard]

So... As a tl;dr for this thread:

DMPC good for first-timers and to help to get along with the game.

DMPC bad any other time?

They aren't necessarily bad in ANY case, it's just that 1) they work best in those scenarios and 2) it's obnoxiously easy to do one badly, or otherwise alienate your players with one. In general, NPCs should not be attached to the party in any capacity other than cohort on a permanent basis, save for when you're either dealing with newbies who don't know what the Hell they're doing or have a low-PC count.

[The Insanity]

I had bad DMPC experiences. They resulted in not playing with bad DMs, not hate towards DMPCs.

[atemu1234]

I've never trusted myself to have an NPC become a member of the party, personally.
I've had a couple recurring characters, but when they show up they tend to be giving out information or doing something non-combat.

[Vogonjeltz]

These DMPC threads usually come up every month or two, and the grand majority of the Playground seems dead set against the concept.

I'm one of the few who aren't, since I've had good experiences with DMPCs, beginning with my first DM for 3.5. He put so much personality into his DMPC that we couldn't help but like the character, and he was handy to have around while still letting the PCs occupy center stage.

I think the necessity is somewhat dependent on the group and their relationship with their DM. I think the best DMPCs should be like the NPCs in Diablo III, capable of contributing, maybe important to the plot, but the players remain the stars of the show.

[Ratatoskir]

I've only ever seen other DMs play cleric or druid healbot DMPCs, so I'm kinda neutral on it. Whether you wanna give us a quiet cleric or a stack of clw wands, whatever.

I've had a "DMPC" every game I DM though. Not because I like to, just because the players I've played with tend to try and recruit every critter they run into. Hard to outshine the party with a lizardfolk ranger or a classless kobold though.

[Troacctid]

I played a DMPC in the last game I ran because one of the players dropped out and left the group a little undersized, and also, I like playing. He was a tanky glaive-wielding Incarnate/Crusader using Iron Guard's Glare and Crusader's Strike to keep other team members alive. He rarely spoke except when spoken to and always let the other PCs take the lead. Outside of combat or "Hey Crusader guy, Mountain Hammer this door, will you?" situations, it was like he wasn't there. That's okay, right?

[EisenKreutzer]

The perfect DMPC participates in roleplaying, but stays back in social encounters. He is useful in a fight, but is never the star player. He introduces plot elements and helps move the story along, but the story is never about him and he never takes the spotlight (unless he's about to die a dramatic death, at which point he should get to shine for a scene).

[Phelix-Mu]

It's interesting.

Back in 2e, the DMs that I played with (well, really there were only two of them) always had characters. It was good role play, good combat, good fun. I guess it helped that they were irl friends and at least one was a really stellar DM.

I wonder that so much has changed in 3e, or in the subcultural zeitgeist, such that DMPCs are now so widely seen as a huge pitfall of gaming.

I suppose I just lucked out. Most of my fondest memories of gaming as a child involved my best friend and I each playing a brace of characters and cooperating in social and combat settings while he DM'd. He was a really good DM, and taught me almost everything I know about compartmentalizing plot from role play (which really isn't rocket science, but it seems to elude many people).

Overall, a cooperative story doesn't preclude recurring npcs or DMPCs, in my mind. If the DM is hogging spotlight, that is a sign of bad DM, not the fault of the DMPC (or the concept of DMPCs). In my campaigns, there is generally more than enough spotlight, and I take pains to involve the backgrounds of the characters and their individual abilities in subplots, challenges, and plot. To me, this seems more realistic, as opposed to a world where the PCs are mysteriously at the center of everything. Everyone gets a role, but it's up to the players to make their character's role a starring role.

[Red Fel]

Please, not this again...

A DMPC is neither. It's the way you use him that's good or bad. Just like Optimization. It's a tool.

This.

A DMPC isn't inherently a bad thing. But outshining the party is only one of many problems that can emerge. Here's a short list. The DMPC is perfectly optimized and outshines the party. The DMPC is deliberately crippled and comes across as a burden to the rest of the party. The DMPC has plot armor and won't be killed. The DMPC is central to the storyline and must be protected. The DMPC is damage-prone or an attack magnet and the party has to fight just to keep him alive. The DMPC just straight-up dies on a regular basis. Why is he even here? The DMPC is perfectly prepared for every encounter, and the party resents his metagame knowledge. The DMPC is specifically unprepared for every encounter, and the party resents his uselessness. The DMPC is neither prepared nor unprepared for any encounter. If he is productive, the party assumes (true or false) that metagame knowledge applied. If he is unproductive, the party assumes (true or false) that the DM was making matters harder by deliberately handicapping him. The DMPC, to avoid metagame knowledge, has all preparation selected by the party. They resent the burden of having to prepare the DM's character. The DMPC is run by players in combat. They resent the burden of running a second character, or wonder why they don't just get second characters of their own, or wonder what the point is of having the DM playing what is functionally a secondary PC. The DMPC exists to provide exposition. NPCs do that and they don't have to tag along perpetually.And so on.

That's not to say that any of this will happen. But it's a tightrope that the DM has to walk perpetually. Even for the most capable DMs, it's a bloody nuisance. If your DMPC outshines the party, you're a jerk and you're giving him an unfair advantage. If he lags too far behind, you're deliberately handicapping the DMPC and thus the party, and making things hard for everyone. It's extremely difficult to find that happy medium.

[Stella]

The only times I've played where a DMPC was involved was with an inexperienced DM. As an example, we were about to die against a random encounter, so a DMPC swung into the fight and saved us all.

Despite the kind intention, to not wipe the party, that's a lousy use of a DMPC. It being capable of defeating the encounter solo which we were not as a group meant that we were ineffective. And while it didn't stick around it was always hovering there as a Deus ex machina if we were overwhelmed again. I'd prefer either to die to the last person due to taking on more than we were ready for, or to succeed based upon our own skills.

But that's just me.

[Squirrel_Dude]

DMPCs are almost always something stupidly put into the game to solve out of game problems (Paladin babysitters are the king of this). I've seen them best used as a super-competant/specialized NPC-aid to the party. Something akin to a cohort on loan for the party to use through the climax of a story, and then fade away into the background at the end of this adventure/the start of the next one.

In the vein of them just being one more tool at the DM's disposal (like optimization is to everyone): I would agree, but with the caveat that they are extremely rarely the best tool for a job or solution to a problem, and that when they fail they tend do so spectacularly.

[The Insanity]

I'm curious what characters from media could be considered DMPCs (obviously the correctly played ones).

[paperarmor]

A Dm I had had his "Signiture Character" that he loved to use thing was half Shadow/Lycanthrope twf heavy armor wearing Psion "inspired" by a certain dark elf both in universe and out, killed off another character in a "cinematic". Ahem, got kinda ranty anyway it can be a recipe for special snowflake syndrome but like any of the tools in the DMs box it can be as good as it can be evil.

[GGambrel]

The perfect DMPC participates in roleplaying, but stays back in social encounters. He is useful in a fight, but is never the star player. He introduces plot elements and helps move the story along, but the story is never about him and he never takes the spotlight (unless he's about to die a dramatic death, at which point he should get to shine for a scene).

I agree with this wholeheartedly. However, I'd also venture to say that a "DMPC" is just an NPC party member, not really a PC at all. It isn't fitting for the DM to think of any NPC as his/her character the way a Player might think of his/her character.

Semantics aside, in addition to what EisenKreutzer has said, I recommend DMPCs should:

Be a lower level/less optimized than the PCs (as a safeguard to outshining them)
Be easy to run (their turns in combat should be VERY quick)
Fill gaps in the party (healing or picking locks for instance)
Be a well-developed NPC that fits with the setting (not outlandishly unique)

[BWR]

I've had very good experiences with DMPCs. They can add a lot of fun and depth to a game.
Just remember:

1. They should not be plot cirtical
If the DMPC is necessary to the plot you are doing something wrong. Suddenly the entire game is one long escort mission and the players will always feel as though their characters are secondary in importance to the game. This might work for some games and some people (play bodyguards to a VIP and the hijinks around that sort of life, for instance) but in general a DMPC should be a character the players like having around, but noit one that is indispensible. If you try to run a game where the PCs are basically just witnesses while the DMPC runs around doing all the important stuff like being the Chosen One (even if the PCs do all the heavy lifting), you will be left with unhappy players.

2. They should not outshine the PCs
One of the major complaints against DMPCs is that they are often the DM's pet character who shows off and outshines the PCs. Put the PCs in a difficult situation and the DMPC wins by pure 'awesome'. This is, I can imagine, not fun in the slightest. It's one thing to have an NPC show off his skills once or twice. It's quite another to have all your efforts as a player entirely sidelined by a power-tripping DM who uses the game to show off his creations rather than make things fun for you.
So a DMPC shoud pull their weight on the team. They should have some useful skills and abilities (and most importantly, survivability) so they aren't entirely useless in hairy situations, but they shouldn't be better than the PCs at much of anything. If the DMPC fills a role that the PCs don't, that's fine (healer in the group, trapfinder, survivalist, etc.).

3. They should not lead the group
DMPCs should not make deicisions. They should not tell the party where to go or what to do. They should not do much of anything than go along with what the PCs decide. At worst, if the players are truly stuck, they might be used to make a vaguely helpful suggestion. In universe knowledge that they might have is one thing, the DM's mouthpiece is another.

4. They should but interesting to interact with.
A DMPC should really only exist for one of two reasons - to round out a party with vital skills (which is why my gf and I use them heavily in our one on one campaigns), and to be interesting characters. If you shove a DMPC in a game make sure it's a character so interesting the PCs (and players) want to have him/her around. A multitude of DMing sins can be forgiven if a person is interesting.

[Gwendol]

I've used them from time to time: the rugged mountain guide, a grumpy officer serving the same lord, or similar.

They've tended to be "built for purpose" in that they are good at what they are set up to be (survivalists, leader of men, or whatever), so that they mechanically have a good shot of being useful and performing as expected. They are not interested in following the party along in all their adventures, just to do what is required at the moment and then leave. They survive the battles, but I haven't fudged the rolls, and if they should fall, so be it.

[BWR]

I've used them from time to time: the rugged mountain guide, a grumpy officer serving the same lord, or similar.

They've tended to be "built for purpose" in that they are good at what they are set up to be (survivalists, leader of men, or whatever), so that they mechanically have a good shot of being useful and performing as expected. They are not interested in following the party along in all their adventures, just to do what is required at the moment and then leave. They survive the battles, but I haven't fudged the rolls, and if they should fall, so be it.

So they're just NPCs, then?
Maybe it's just my underestanding of the term, but a DMPC in my book is not just purpose built NPC for a specific situation that ups and leaves afterwards, they are actual members of the party. They have an in-game say in what goes on (even if they shouldn't have any say over the players' choices), they go on adventure after adventure with the party, they get shares of the loot and other rewards, they are literally PCs in all respects other than that the DM controls them.

[Gwendol]

Hmm, yeah probably NPC's. Never seen a DMPC in action then, and frankly, they seem like a bad idea.

[prufock]

I've run DMPCs before a few times, and played in games with them, but I wouldn't do so again if I have the choice. Neither went particularly badly, but they weren't necessary. The game would have been just fine treating them as NPCs and not having them join up with the party. It's a better move to just adjust encounters to a lower party level to account for less players. If the PCs want more members, they can hire someone or get Leadership.

[Yahzi]

DMPC = bad.

NPC who is interesting and helpful and fully fleshed out with a character sheet = good.

If you can murder/betray/fire/leave behind the character without pissing off another player, then it is an NPC. If you can't, then it is a PC. And DMs shouldn't run PCs because it is a massive conflict of interest.

That said, I could totally see myself running a DMPC - but only because I run my PCs like NPCs anyway. :smallbiggrin:

[Larrx]

I never really understand these threads. The term DMPC has always seemed to imply dysfunction. A character controlled by a player is a PC, and one controlled by the DM is an NPC. Suggesting that a character is, paradoxically, both at the same time can only mean that something has gone terribly wrong, right? I guess not everyone uses the acronym in that way.

That being said, I usually treat cohorts, familiars, animal companions and such like DMPCs. They are officially NPCs, but unless they are asked to do something extremely egregious I allow the player to treat them as, effectively, a second PC and make all choices for them. I doubt this is what most people mean by DMPC though.

I will occasionally allow one of my NPCs to participate in an adventure with the party. Most of my (class level having) NPCs have plans and obligations of their own, but sometimes the party will attempt to recruit someone who has no good reason to refuse. I never have an NPC travel and work with the party unless they specifically sought out that situation in game.

[Naez]

The only time I've seen it done well is the DMPC was completely inert outside of combat and was a heal bot in combat since we desperately needed a healer and potions weren't cutting it. I've seen it done otherwise with the character actually being involved but the unintentional metagaming was too much.

[prufock]

I never really understand these threads. The term DMPC has always seemed to imply dysfunction. A character controlled by a player is a PC, and one controlled by the DM is an NPC. Suggesting that a character is, paradoxically, both at the same time can only mean that something has gone terribly wrong, right?
DMPC is just a subcategory of NPC. All DMPCs are NPCs, but not all NPCs are DMPCs. A DMPC is one that is a party member, present for the majority of adventures, and in many respects treated as the DM's personal avatar in the group.


That being said, I usually treat cohorts, familiars, animal companions and such like DMPCs. They are officially NPCs, but unless they are asked to do something extremely egregious I allow the player to treat them as, effectively, a second PC and make all choices for them.
I allow my players to control their cohorts, familiars, animal companions, and such, for the purpose of encounter-type activities. I roleplay their personalities.


I will occasionally allow one of my NPCs to participate in an adventure with the party. Most of my (class level having) NPCs have plans and obligations of their own, but sometimes the party will attempt to recruit someone who has no good reason to refuse. I never have an NPC travel and work with the party unless they specifically sought out that situation in game.
Much like the Leadership feat or hiring people to work for you, this isn't much of a problem, as it is a player decision to do so. DMPCs are more problematic when they're inserted by the DM as a default group member.

[Trasilor]

I never understood the fascination with DMPC.

As a DM you have dozens of things pulling your attention at once. From various players talking to you at the same time, to another player slipping you a note, to remembering if you told your PCs about some important plot aspect, to playing EVERY OTHER SENTIENT CREATURE, etc.

Being responsible for all these things, why would a DM want another thing to worry about? Especially 3.5 where even the most basic character sheet is 2+ pages long.

Not to mention, interaction between NPC and DMPC is basically the DM playing with themselves.

Unless you are playing a game where the DM is basically non-existent (truly a cooperative story), I would not recommend this. Not because of all the conflict of interest / meta game knowledge, but because it divides your attention even more.

[tomandtish]

I'm curious what characters from media could be considered DMPCs (obviously the correctly played ones).

That's going to be tricky. When it's done well (especially in media), you shouldn't be able to tell that they are a DMPC. They are just a PC (ie a main character) like any of the others.

It's when they are done poorly that they stand out. A few examples:

Dritzz't (why the rest of the players keep playing I'll never know)
Wesley Crusher (with apologies to Wil Wheaton)
Wolverine in any work that is not meant to be a solo title

[Red Fel]

I never understood the fascination with DMPC.

As a DM you have dozens of things pulling your attention at once. From various players talking to you at the same time, to another player slipping you a note, to remembering if you told your PCs about some important plot aspect, to playing EVERY OTHER SENTIENT CREATURE, etc.

Being responsible for all these things, why would a DM want another thing to worry about? Especially 3.5 where even the most basic character sheet is 2+ pages long.

Not to mention, interaction between NPC and DMPC is basically the DM playing with themselves.

There are a number of reasons why a DM might want to play a DMPC, not all of them unreasonable. Some, on the other hand, are hallmarks of bad DMing, and thus contribute to the DMPC's unpopular reputation. A few examples: Your players are aimless. A DMPC helps to keep the game moving forward. Your players are too stubborn and refuse to ride the rails. A DMPC can keep them on the rails. It's lonely at the top. A DMPC lets the DM play alongside his friends, as opposed to across from them. The campaign is your story, and your DMPC is at the center of it. The campaign is the players' story, but you really want your character to be a part of it too. There are vital plot points, and the players can't be trusted to enact them. You want to do something awesome. You want the players to see you do something awesome. You want to embarrass or show up your players. You never wanted to DM in the first place. You wanted to play.And so forth.

Let's face it. DMing is hard work, playing is hard fun. It's no wonder a DM might want to be a player every now and then.

... I still don't recommend it, though.

[TheMonocleRogue]

It works in circumstances where the DMPC isn't the party face, or if the DMPC isn't integral to the plot of the campaign.

And if you're thinking of making a DMPC just remember not to give him Rob Schneider syndrome. In other words he has to contribute something useful to the party or be useful in combat and not just crack jokes all the time.

[Honest Tiefling]

So... As a tl;dr for this thread:

DMPC good for first-timers and to help to get along with the game.

DMPC bad any other time?

I disagree with this, actually. I'd avoid the DMPC for newbies. Why? They might be getting a handle on trying to role-play, and figuring out what this DMPC business is might confuse them. They might get overwhelmed by a more experienced player/DM trying to 'guide' them which is a common trap. And if the first adventure is so dangerous as to require an extra body, it might not be a great idea to start off with in the first place.

[LTwerewolf]

DMPCs have their place, and that place is when you have so few players that unless they play tier 1's, they're not really able to have themselves an awesome adventure.

[Trasilor]

There are a number of reasons why a DM might want to play

{snipped}

... I still don't recommend it, though.

So basically, people contrive reasons to have a DMPC rather than work with their fellow gamers :smallamused:

[VoxRationis]

Part of being the DM is playing every single thing that is not a PC. If the PCs are intelligent and considerate, they'll note times when it makes sense that someone who isn't one of their number should join up with them to aid a common goal. It's metagaming for Karek Silversmith the dwarf to not invite his childhood friend and fellow warrior, with whom he has recently met up, to join him on his travels when he has no problems with cooperating with a larcenous halfling he met in a bar a week ago, simply because the former is an NPC and the latter is played by his sister, a fellow player.

[aleucard]

Part of being the DM is playing every single thing that is not a PC. If the PCs are intelligent and considerate, they'll note times when it makes sense that someone who isn't one of their number should join up with them to aid a common goal. It's metagaming for Karek Silversmith the dwarf to not invite his childhood friend and fellow warrior, with whom he has recently met up, to join him on his travels when he has no problems with cooperating with a larcenous halfling he met in a bar a week ago, simply because the former is an NPC and the latter is played by his sister, a fellow player.

The dividing line between an NPC and a DMPC is that the former is freely considered fair game to do basically anything to, while the latter enjoys at least some of the plot armor that PCs do. To be perfectly fair, there are some times when the PCs simply do not have enough people in the party, and sometimes throttling back the challenges to compensate is a non-option for whatever reason. Thus, the reasonable existence of DMPC's. Sure, an NPC tagalong could do much the same job, but there's nowhere near as much security in its continued presence in that case. There are ways to work around this issue that don't need DMPC's, though (for instance, the party works for a merc group/army/etc., and either they or the group's personnel department is smart enough to recognize when additional people are required and can provide between missions).

[Phelix-Mu]

The dividing line between an NPC and a DMPC is that the former is freely considered fair game to do basically anything to, while the latter enjoys at least some of the plot armor that PCs do. To be perfectly fair, there are some times when the PCs simply do not have enough people in the party, and sometimes throttling back the challenges to compensate is a non-option for whatever reason. Thus, the reasonable existence of DMPC's. Sure, an NPC tagalong could do much the same job, but there's nowhere near as much security in its continued presence in that case. There are ways to work around this issue that don't need DMPC's, though (for instance, the party works for a merc group/army/etc., and either they or the group's personnel department is smart enough to recognize when additional people are required and can provide between missions).

No, no, I totally disagree here. PCs and NPCs are functionally the same inside the game world. As DM, I may decide to cut the PCs a break, to cut NPCs a break, or whatever. Or I might decide to kill them with impunity if they have bitten off more than they can chew. Causality cuts both ways, and I personally don't have anything against PC death, even if it's my PC. Luckily, it's a game where death is very low on the list of bad things that can happen, and heroes generally have resources to mitigate it to the point of triviality. Ending character careers for other reasons or by other means happpens all of the time, and while out-of-game it's a much bigger deal for a player, as DM that is an out-of-game concern that I need to have made clear out-of-game. If Johnny the Fish has engaged in mafia shenanigans that just aren't in keeping with the tenor of the campaign, then out-of-game I make his player aware of that and let them scale it back/make up for it, but in-game Johnny has no special consideration. He's likely to get retired, either by fading into the background of the plot, or by getting dumped into the harbor with a new set of concrete footwear.

But whether the tag along is my DMPC or an NPC, neither gets any more or less consideration than the other. And if the PCs act like jerks to the tag-along, expect the tag-along to ditch or seek commensurate retaliation, cause that's how normal interactions work in real life. I don't like arbitrary lines popping up due to metagame concerns (though I try to deal with them compassionately when they inevitably do).

[thematgreen]

If I play a DMPC that character is more like a mercenary than anything. He follows the group, fills in needed gaps in skills, and will not suggest anything, most of the time going 'You're the boss' when asked his opinion. RP wise I interact, but I won't give info that will reveal what to do.

[dascarletm]

I'm curious what characters from media could be considered DMPCs (obviously the correctly played ones).

Firefly has tons. Arguably everyone on that ship is part of the "party." I've had games that run a similar model but in a more classical setting.

Here is my breakdown.



Malcolm Reynolds: Player character. Need I say much more? Party leader, high morals. Focuses mostly on role-play.
Zoe Washburne: Another player character. Likes combat and some role-play.
Hoban Washburne: Arguably a DMPC. Gets them where they need to go, but doesn't go on most of the land missions. This could be a PC.
Inara Serra: NPC. main player's love interest.
Jayne Cobb: Player character. Kick in the door style.
Kaylee Frye: DMPC. Similar to wash.
Simon Tam: PC, that had lots of back-story, but doesn't show up to most sessions. Is there for most of the background sessions, and at least one caper.
River Tam: DMPC. Do I need to explain why?
Derrial Book: PC. Shows up maybe once every other session. But he wrote such a good super secret backstory, too bad the DM never got around to really explaining it in game.

[aleucard]

No, no, I totally disagree here. PCs and NPCs are functionally the same inside the game world. As DM, I may decide to cut the PCs a break, to cut NPCs a break, or whatever. Or I might decide to kill them with impunity if they have bitten off more than they can chew. Causality cuts both ways, and I personally don't have anything against PC death, even if it's my PC. Luckily, it's a game where death is very low on the list of bad things that can happen, and heroes generally have resources to mitigate it to the point of triviality. Ending character careers for other reasons or by other means happpens all of the time, and while out-of-game it's a much bigger deal for a player, as DM that is an out-of-game concern that I need to have made clear out-of-game. If Johnny the Fish has engaged in mafia shenanigans that just aren't in keeping with the tenor of the campaign, then out-of-game I make his player aware of that and let them scale it back/make up for it, but in-game Johnny has no special consideration. He's likely to get retired, either by fading into the background of the plot, or by getting dumped into the harbor with a new set of concrete footwear.

But whether the tag along is my DMPC or an NPC, neither gets any more or less consideration than the other. And if the PCs act like jerks to the tag-along, expect the tag-along to ditch or seek commensurate retaliation, cause that's how normal interactions work in real life. I don't like arbitrary lines popping up due to metagame concerns (though I try to deal with them compassionately when they inevitably do).

It's still valid in this case. You afford the DMPC at least as much plot armor as a PC. You just have it as a zero-value.

I'll try to rephrase my definiton. If you want to do a scene in the game similar to this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jOu-5ebDpc) (spoiler warning for Serenity), then how most PC's will react to it will change depending on if the target's a PC or not (assuming that the targeted Player is not informed). Namely, if an NPC gets squished, they'll react negatively in-character. If a PC is the target, however, they'll react negatively OUT-of-character. For the player in question, this is indistinguishable from a random or 'random' "Rocks Fall, You Die". For the rest of the party, this makes them think that they could be next for similar. A DMPC, despite being an NPC as well, engenders this or a similar response if insta-gibbed in such a fashion, because to the party, that character is not just another goon floating around in their game. To be fair, it's possible to use this for story-enhancing purposes (because if a party is invested enough to see an NPC as a PC, even if it's a DMPC, seeing it get the Finger of God treatment (http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ft5zSdNM--/17mt53o7rtznrjpg.jpg) is going to provoke a WTF response), but good luck pulling it off without pissing off your players at the DM rather than the in-game thing that just nuked one of their buddies.

[Marlowe]

I'm curious what characters from media could be considered DMPCs (obviously the correctly played ones).

Now, THAT is a secret.
http://tenbuhorin.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/xellos.jpg?w=600