PDA

View Full Version : Acceptable DMPCs?



wumpus
2015-12-15, 11:47 AM
After laughing at this thread ("http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472129-Is-this-DMPC-okay) I was wondering about workable DMPCs. For obvious reasons, I expect the list is going to be short.

1. The Gandalf (citation: the-site-that-shall-not-be-linked). [for new players only] Don't bother stating him up, just make sure he can handle any threat and show the characters the ropes. Critical Point: he leaves/dies before things get tough. Problem: doesn't really serve the point of a DMPC in that he can't really advance, and isn't around for the real xp/loot. The satire thread might even be made to work if the whole campaign revolved around resurrecting the Mary Sue who bought it in the first encounter (but is prophesied to defeat the BEEG, hopefully a dragon dying from eating her), but I suspect that a face/heel turn after a short exposure would make a far better villain (how do you make a villain that your players *want* to slay without squicking them out? Use a Mary Sue).

2. The Vow of Silence. Was originally going to label him/her "the sidekick", but that is likely de rigeur for workable DMPCs. This one simply has taken a vow of silence (beyond the historical sense that allowed limited sign language*) and thus is incapable of party decisions and discussions (some NPC authority/the gods assigned him/her to the party (but can still flee if abused)). Note that any hints delivered to the party should not involve the sidekick, but use other means (to keep the party from badgering/torturing the poor sidekick). Ideal for healbots in systems without CoDzillas, or maybe meatshields in high power D&D.

Any other ideas?

* said sign language was important in Renaissance art (and probably before/after as well). If the artist felt a need to communicate beyond the actual image, the people would often have their hands positioned in ways meaningful in the monkish sign language. I suspect this is the only reason we know of this language, or at least the actual signs.

AMFV
2015-12-15, 11:54 AM
ANY DMPC can be acceptable if the group has fun. That includes the DM playing another player character even. In fact there are systems where this is an expected part of the system. I would argue that any set of guidelines is going to be either too vague or too narrow to really be useful beyond a set that depends largely on game and playstyle.

DigoDragon
2015-12-15, 12:09 PM
One of the most well-liked DMPCs I've had was Astraxia. She started off as a red dragon antagonist against the PCs, but after a while the party was warming up to her goal (to overthrow the rulers of a nation that encroached upon her lair). The PCs warmed up because the campaign BBEG was hiding in this nation behind a Wall of red tape. Overthrowing the rulers meant the country collapses and the PCs can then get past the borders to do their will with impunity.

Anyway, the party was on a side adventure to slay a powerful vampire. The vampire cursed Astraxia into the body of a female elf. I replaced her dragon levels with bard levels because I thought the party could use an extra buff-giver on the team. I kept her sass intact though. :smallbiggrin: She was 2 levels behind the party, but still high enough to keep up and be useful with those bard buffs. She never took the spotlight from the PCs, but the players got to really like her as a character. Despite the fact she was technically evil (though a very cooperative kind of evil).

After slaying the vampire, the PCs had the choice of breaking Astraxia's curse or leaving her as an elf. They actually broke the curse. Also, three PCs gave her their "resume" to be one of her thralls/minions/slaves because they just found her so much fun to hang around. Thankfully the paladin and fighter brought them to their senses. Since then Astraxia didn't adventure with them, but the party had her respect. And she had their admiration.

daremetoidareyo
2015-12-15, 12:27 PM
A silent kender master rogue. Think about it, it would be awesome. He's got 3 bags of holding full of neat things. He can't be scared by nothin. He always has access to some item that might be helpful. He can play the harmonica at night. His rust monster cohort would be so helpful!

Flickerdart
2015-12-15, 12:27 PM
There are basically two reasons why a DMPC might be bad, and they both boil down to "why are the PCs even there?"

Mechanically: the DMPC is exceptionally powerful compared to the party, and steals the spotlight. The PCs fight mooks or don't fight at all. The PCs wonder why he needs help.
Roleplaying-wise: the DMPC is a plot exposition dump machine (or talks to plot dump NPCs), and essentially railroads the party. The game becomes a series of cutscenes. The PCs wonder why he needs them if he already knows everything.

You should also ask yourself why you are having a DMPC in the first place. There is basically only one reason that holds water: the party is missing a key role - either because there are too few of them or because nobody wanted to play the healbot/skillmonkey/punching bag/whatever.

So we need a guy who can fill roles people don't like, avoid taking the spotlight, and avoid bossing the party around. One option is to just go for a weak guy, but I recommend the alternative - the Mario.

The Mario is not particularly great at any one task, but he's there when the party needs him for anything. Scout ahead for ambushes? Send the DMPC. Heal the fighter? Send the DMPC. The gruff band of mercenaries needs to eavesdrop at a nobleman's ball? Send the DMPC. Need a letter forged? Send the DMPC. He's the "take 10" of party members.

LordFluffy
2015-12-15, 12:35 PM
Comedy relief: He's statted okay, but he is primarily there to add color to the world, not to make the big plays. His skills are all supplemental. Medic, buffer, boring science person... any of the above with a dash of wit.

I had a game based on the Justifier's system from the 80's. A hyperactive squirrel anthropomorph with an enormous revolver. He was the team medic. He worked well as a tension breaker.

He was also a pivotal plot point, but he didn't come into play in that regard until the last adventure I ran with that group. :)

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-15, 12:35 PM
I think my favorite GMPC is the one your characters force you to have.

An NPC ends up being forcefully recruited to the group, for instance. If the GM has played them all along, suddenly he has a PC.

All of my GMPCs have come this way, and because of that they are all really weird.

An AI, A drug dealer, and a cultist who worships acid rain have all been GMPCs I've been wrangled into playing.

Âmesang
2015-12-15, 12:36 PM
He can play the harmonica at night.
I'd like this… but only after the PCs say "goodnight" to each other by name. :smallbiggrin:

(To be honest I do tend to find bards make decent "DMPCs" …probably due to being the fifth-wheel of your typical four-man party, with just enough of everything to fill-in-the-gaps.)

Mastikator
2015-12-15, 12:40 PM
3. Dies early either to drop fat loot for the PCs or to facilitate the plot. Either way it will be cathartic to the PCs when the DMPC dies and the players will forgive you for having a DMPC.

Thrudd
2015-12-15, 12:59 PM
Why call it a DMPC instead of an NPC? If the implication is that the DM uses this character as their own permanent party member in order to influence the direction and actions of the other players, then there is no such thing as an acceptable DMPC. An NPC which accompanies the party on a regular basis should be either a lower level companion or hireling. They should not help solve problems via DM exposition. Equal and higher level NPCs should not be accompanying the party for more than a brief time, if ever.
The best way to run an NPC companion is to let the players control them in combat, and determine their knowledge and opinions (if the players ask for them) randomly. Just because the DM is acting the part of the level 1 torch bearer doesn't mean the guy should give good advice about which direction to choose or anything else, nor that he has accurate information about everything or anything.

nedz
2015-12-15, 01:57 PM
It is very easy to confuse NPCs with DMPCs.

It doesn't help that there is no hard definition which can tell you this so one person's NPC is another's DMPC.

I would argue that DMPCs you find acceptable, and again the latter point is subjective, are in fact NPCs.

AMFV
2015-12-15, 02:02 PM
It is very easy to confuse NPCs with DMPCs.

It doesn't help that there is no hard definition which can tell you this so one person's NPC is another's DMPC.

I would argue that DMPCs you find acceptable, and again the latter point is subjective, are in fact NPCs.

I would disagree completely. There are NPCs who are unacceptable and are NOT DMPCs for a wide variety of reasons. And there are likewise acceptable DMPCs. Again there are games that allow for and encourage the presence of DMPCs. Certainly there are no problems with DMPCs who are party members when the players are okay with it.

I'm frankly seeing a shocking amount of "wrongbadfun" when it comes to DMPCs, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of having a DMPC as long as the DM can separate from the role as DM and the interests of his character (and the degree of separation varies a lot by game).

CharonsHelper
2015-12-15, 02:04 PM
3. Dies early either to drop fat loot for the PCs or to facilitate the plot. Either way it will be cathartic to the PCs when the DMPC dies and the players will forgive you for having a DMPC.

Lol - that just reminds me of the first security guard in half-life. (the 1st one) Security guards have pistols and would link up with you and help you in fights etc. - but they couldn't follow you into air ducts. You have to leave the 1st one behind before you even get a gun (crowbar!)... so I killed him and took his gun. >.<

nedz
2015-12-15, 02:38 PM
There are NPCs who are unacceptable and are NOT DMPCs for a wide variety of reasons.

Can you give me some examples please ?

Note: since the DM runs NPCs and DMPCs there is no functional difference, these two things differ only by how we choose to define them.

AMFV
2015-12-15, 03:07 PM
Can you give me some examples please ?

Note: since the DM runs NPCs and DMPCs there is no functional difference, these two things differ only by how we choose to define them.

A DMPC is a character that the DM plays as his character. In the same sense that a player plays one. He has his own narrative interests outside of that of the DM's greater narrative. An NPC is only there to support the greater narrative.

Functionally this may appear the same, and may often be the same, but I would argue that the motivations and the intentions are different enough to require a different definition.

A DMPC that runs roughshod over a party is liable to be motivated by very different inclinations than a regular NPC that does, although they may appear similar.

QUOTE=nedz;20196855]These two things differ only by how we choose to define them.[/QUOTE]

All things do. As with many things there is a judgement call however. I would simply argue that allowing for two disparate definitions is useful here rather than confusing.

SimonMoon6
2015-12-15, 03:17 PM
I think my favorite GMPC is the one your characters force you to have.

An NPC ends up being forcefully recruited to the group, for instance. If the GM has played them all along, suddenly he has a PC.

Something like that happened to me in a 1st edition D&D game once. While the PCs were on an island of beholders, I rolled for a random encounter. I rolled an ogre. So, what's an ogre doing on an island of beholders? Running away, of course! So, the PCs met him as he was running away and he joined up with them. However, he became less of a DMPC than, well, a hireling. The PC who recruited him into the group got to control him in combat (mostly). The group was meant to have another DMPC (a gnome cleric/illusionist) because the group didn't have a cleric, but then someone else joined the group and made a cleric, so he became another NPC who did whatever this one particular PC wanted him to do in combat. Eventually, all the PCs got extra NPCs to control in combat, so it sort of balanced out? I don't know, it was a weird game.

But I have had rather different experiences with DMPCs overall. I remember in one superhero game (where I was just a player), the DMPC was generally disliked. At one point (since he often gave useful advice), one player (when at a loss for what to do) just said, "Well, we'll just follow [the DMPC] wherever he goes," though the DMPC wasn't really being run as an omniscient kind of character.

Whereas in games I've run, I've had DMPCs and often tried to downplay them or remove them from the game, but the players actually were opposed to that. They wanted the DMPC around. So, you know, whatcha gonna do? (But then, my DMPCs never steal the show and never know the answers to the problems the PCs face, occasionally offering merely reasonable advice but no more than that.)

Steampunkette
2015-12-15, 03:29 PM
Agreed with AMFV.

I've had DMPCS and NPCS move with the party, sometimes together. The NPCS get less individual narrative focus than the DMPCS who is meant to be more to the party as a character.

DireSickFish
2015-12-15, 03:38 PM
I've had spectator NPC's before. They follow the adventurers around and give off exposition or point out things I want them to know as a way for me to interact with the party and give info in a dungeon. They will then leave after that and don't really take part in combat. It also allows me to flesh out an NPC so the party actually remembers who they are and what there motivations are later. They can act a lot like a DMNPC if I need to show that they are combat capable.

Other times the PC's request aid or to work together and I don't have sufficient reason to deny them. Then the paladins of undead smiting help with the zombie problem or whatever. Since it's kind of a last minute thing I'll either use combat stats if they were intended to be an opponent or have them swing longswords about for minuscule damage. The NPC human statblocks at the back of the Monster manual help out a lot for this sort of thing.

I see DMC's as a good idea for a low player count game when the DM doesn't feel comfortable scaling the encounters for that few players, or some one can't make the game and the party is going to want it to take on the challenges already presented.

I could see having a DMPC be a plot important NPC that the party will be able to influence/advise on his path. If you go the whole prince route with him perhaps the PC's can use him to get themselves into positions of power without having to fight over who gets to be "in charge". Or what values he'll eventually found his order of knights on based on the PCs. The important thing with a DMPC like this the the player actions need to drive the plot not your DMPC's.

Edit: This is mostly conjecture as I haven't played with DMPC as a PC nor used them as a DM.

nedz
2015-12-15, 04:00 PM
A DMPC is a character that the DM plays as his character. In the same sense that a player plays one. He has his own narrative interests outside of that of the DM's greater narrative. An NPC is only there to support the greater narrative.

By these definitions I have neither DMPCs not NPCs :smallconfused:

I do tend to run sand boxey games where NPCs have their own interests and agendas - often benign.

Red Fel
2015-12-15, 04:06 PM
I'm frankly seeing a shocking amount of "wrongbadfun" when it comes to DMPCs, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of having a DMPC as long as the DM can separate from the role as DM and the interests of his character (and the degree of separation varies a lot by game).

This.

I have frequently espoused the position that a DMPC is not an inherently bad thing, but instead constitutes a yellow flag. Not even a red flag, just a yellow one.

The DMPC is grounds for a raised eyebrow. It is dangerous territory. In the hands of the immature, the power-hungry, the show-off, or the controlling GM, it becomes a problem. Even in the hands of a fair-minded GM who can separate the character's interests and knowledge from the GM's own, it is dangerous territory.

Consider the following scenario. The DMPC is the only spellcaster in the party. The GM (but not the DMPC) knows that there is an obstacle coming up which could be trivialized by a spell, if the DMPC prepares it. There are several ways this could go down.
The DMPC prepares the spell. The party easily overcomes the obstacle. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for using metagame knowledge to pave the road for his DMPC. This is irrespective of whether the GM used metagame knowledge.
The DMPC does not prepare the spell. The obstacle is or is not overcome, but the players are aware of the fact that, had the DMPC prepared the spell in question, it would have been trivial. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for deliberately avoiding the use of the spell that would trivialize the encounter, based on his metagame knowledge. This is irrespective of metagame knowledge.
To ensure conclusively that he cannot be accused of using metagame knowledge in spell selection, the GM selects the DMPC's spells at random. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for the fact that his idiot useless DMPC prepared Create Water a dozen times.
Note how I said "the players may be fine with this" in each scenario. That's because, as I've stated, use of a DMPC is not inherently bad. Rule of Fun prevails; if the players don't have a problem, you're doing alright. However, there is no situation with a DMPC where it is impossible for the players to take issue. Such a situation doesn't exist. Either you're preparing your DMPC for encounters of which you're aware (whether you are or aren't), or you're deliberately not preparing them (whether you are or aren't), or you're doing things randomly, which is stupid. It's entirely too easy to fall into a no-win situation.

Mature players and a mature GM make a DMPC possible. There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea. But it takes trust and an even hand. And if any of those is missing, the flag waves, the eyebrow goes up, and you watch your back.

Flickerdart
2015-12-15, 04:22 PM
There are several ways this could go down.
The DMPC prepares the spell.
The DMPC does not prepare the spell.
The GM selects the DMPC's spells at random.
In this particular case, there's actually a fourth, much better option: the DMPC asks the party what he should prepare for the day, and the PCs ask the DMPC to prepare spells they think they might need, scribe scrolls, etc. They might still complain, but at that point if the DMPC didn't prepare the spell in question, that's mostly on them.

Red Fel
2015-12-15, 04:28 PM
In this particular case, there's actually a fourth, much better option: the DMPC asks the party what he should prepare for the day, and the PCs ask the DMPC to prepare spells they think they might need, scribe scrolls, etc. They might still complain, but at that point if the DMPC didn't prepare the spell in question, that's mostly on them.

Valid choice. But at that point, he's becoming less a DMPC and more a GM-run cohort to the players. The more control over the DMPC the GM cedes to the players, the less it's a DMPC.

By comparison, if a player runs his PC, and another player creates a PC, and then pretty much lets the first player run it, the second PC is less a PC (run by the second player) and more a cohort (run by the first player). If we're defining a DMPC as "player character run by the GM," the less the GM runs it, the less it's a DMPC.

The whole point of a DMPC is that, for whatever reason, the GM needs or wants to operate a character. Not just an NPC, but a character, to travel and fight alongside the PCs and be comparable in power to them. Letting the PCs run an aspect of this character undercuts that purpose, somewhat.

veti
2015-12-15, 04:57 PM
Consider the following scenario. The DMPC is the only spellcaster in the party. The GM (but not the DMPC) knows that there is an obstacle coming up which could be trivialized by a spell, if the DMPC prepares it.

The DM is running the session. It's up to them to decide: should this obstacle be trivial, or not? That's a decision that you might want to go either way, depending on (among other things) the structure of the scenario, the tempo of the session, and the mood of the players at the time. I would try to put off as late as possible, right up to "how is the session going and how are the party all feeling, at the point when they get to the obstacle?"

And only then would I decide if the DMPC has prepared that spell today - unless the PCs have somehow forced me to declare it earlier, of course.

Sure, there's potential for the players to moan. But as you point out, that's always true.

nedz
2015-12-15, 05:32 PM
The DMPC prepares the spell. The party easily overcomes the obstacle. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for using metagame knowledge to pave the road for his DMPC. This is irrespective of whether the GM used metagame knowledge.
The DMPC does not prepare the spell. The obstacle is or is not overcome, but the players are aware of the fact that, had the DMPC prepared the spell in question, it would have been trivial. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for deliberately avoiding the use of the spell that would trivialize the encounter, based on his metagame knowledge. This is irrespective of metagame knowledge.
To ensure conclusively that he cannot be accused of using metagame knowledge in spell selection, the GM selects the DMPC's spells at random. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for the fact that his idiot useless DMPC prepared Create Water a dozen times.

In the first two cases here the DM is metagaming. With the random case, as with Flickerdart's example, it's not a DMPC; since the DM is not making the decisions for the character.

Metagaming is unavoidable with a DMPC, which is the problem.

JeenLeen
2015-12-15, 05:34 PM
In agreement others, I think a DMPC best works when 1) it's fun for the group and 2) the DMPC fills a hole.

My gaming group currently has 2 players and 1 DM. That's a small number of PCs, so the DM rarely but when needed will create and DMPC to accompany us. It's somewhere between DMPC and NPC, since it's not always the same character but more often some guy who accompanies us for a few missions. But we had at least one game where the DM was a healbot-trapfinder since none of us wanted to do that role. It works well, and he's willing to say OOC that his character does not have an opinion or will not cast a tie-breaking vote because he's the DM and he doesn't want to influence us.

(But I've heard horror stories of bad DMPCs, so I see why folk are wary. I would be if I didn't trust my DM and want the help in-game.)

----

With the spellcasting list question: a DMPC caster could have a prepared set of spells they always prepare, unless the party recommends something different or the situation is obvious. (I do that when I'm making a caster to avoid the work of thinking over spells each day.)

nedz
2015-12-15, 05:52 PM
Playing any game is about making decisions.

In an RPG the players have imperfect information, whilst the DM has perfect information.

Quite often you find yourself in a situation where you have a number of options, some of which will work, some of which will not. The player has to work out which option their character will take.

Now if you have perfect information you will know the answer so you cannot make this decision. You do get to make a different decision: do I get this right, or do I screw up ? This is not playing a character, this is deciding how to metagame.

Cazero
2015-12-15, 06:15 PM
In the first two cases here the DM is metagaming. With the random case, as with Flickerdart's example, it's not a DMPC; since the DM is not making the decisions for the character.

Metagaming is unavoidable with a DMPC, which is the problem.

Arguable.
The DMPC needs to prepare his spells. He should always prepare the same list without a good reason to prepare specific spells. Those reasons can be obvious environemental factor (Light in the Underdark) or are the result of a collective effort of preparation by the players. Having their wizard buddy trivialize an encounter is much less problematic in that case because it still rewards the players.
But the DMPC will eventualy meet both described situations (an unexpected problem is trivialized with the right spell, or isn't but could have been). If the DMPC was using his usual spell list, there was no metagaming involved, period.
"But the DM designed the encounter !" So what? He has to challenge his players with new things regularly and systematicaly avoiding encounter that can/can't be trivialized by the DMPC is a different DMPC problem (the Useless Sidekick/Mary Sue dichotomy problem).


A DM can run a DMPC without metagaming. The complaints will come from the players assuming a metagaming issue, and making that assumption is metagaming. If your players don't metagame when they shouldn't, there is no metagaming with your DMPC.


edited : ninja'd. Might as well add some stuff.


Playing any game is about making decisions.

In an RPG the players have imperfect information, whilst the DM has perfect information.

Quite often you find yourself in a situation where you have a number of options, some of which will work, some of which will not. The player has to work out which option their character will take.

Now if you have perfect information you will know the answer so you cannot make this decision. You do get to make a different decision: do I get this right, or do I screw up ? This is not playing a character, this is deciding how to metagame.

According success/failure : the DM can't predict rolls. He can cheat, but that's has nothing to do with that "perfect information" paradigm.
According perfect information : making the decision the character would do while ignoring additional information the player have is an everyday exercise in RPGs, trivial for competent roleplayers. The DM can totally do that.

nedz
2015-12-15, 06:56 PM
If the DMPC was using his usual spell list, there was no metagaming involved, period.
But which spell does he cast ?


A DM can run a DMPC without metagaming. The complaints will come from the players assuming a metagaming issue, and making that assumption is metagaming. If your players don't metagame when they shouldn't, there is no metagaming with your DMPC.
This came up recently on a thread about Sense Motive and whether the DM should make the rolls secretly. By revealing OOC information you invalidate the player's choices because metagaming is unavoidable. The DM has all of the OOC information.


According success/failure : the DM can't predict rolls. He can cheat, but that's has nothing to do with that "perfect information" paradigm.
According perfect information : making the decision the character would do while ignoring additional information the player have is an everyday exercise in RPGs, trivial for competent roleplayers. The DM can totally do that.
This problem is not trivial, it's impossible.

If a DM can second guess a decision a player would make, given imperfect information, they can totally predict rolls.

VoxRationis
2015-12-15, 09:47 PM
A DM of any worth is capable of not metagaming with a party-affiliated NPC: after all, their villains already aren't metagaming (most of the time).

I'd like to posit the archetype of The Guide for acceptable DM party members. All too often, players, particularly in "if-it's-printed-it's-playable" environments like those encouraged by this forum, will make characters wholly alien to the setting, or at least to the locality. At this point, someone needs to be able to consistently tell them what's what in the local area—not necessarily to point to them where to go, but to tell them what is where they're pointing. This person has all the local knowledge the party needs to get by, and speaks any local languages the players ignored during character creation.
And really, is it realistic to keep 0-level hirelings around when the party's going up against 40-orc warbands and fireball-tossing wizards as a matter of course? No sane person would associate with such danger-stricken individuals for more than half an hour unless they were equally powerful. So The Guide needs to be of power comparable to a not-particularly-strong party member—at least in durability. A fighter-type, particularly one geared towards survivability, fits the bill nicely. Doesn't steal kills, but can guard a more delicate party member, and isn't going to be a liability.

lsfreak
2015-12-15, 10:24 PM
Personally I'd define the DMPC-NPC scale as relating to character transience.

DMPCs are a genuine part of the party. They are expected to stay with the other characters for the duration of the campaign and be an active participant in the overall plot. Removing them from the party is something that has to be discussed out-of-game.

NPCs are less bound to the party. They have their own life, and their own story. They may be with the party for a time, but there's no expectation that they'll be involved all the way to the end. Nor are they usually part of the party from the start the way a PC is expected to be (assuming a fairly consistent group). They may leave at any time in a way that a PC can't, at least not without being replaced, and the players may decide they don't like the NPC and "vote him off the island" without any of the hurt feelings you'd get if 3 players decided they didn't like the 4th's character.

GrayDeath
2015-12-16, 09:59 AM
While,a side from my very first try at a Campaign, I managed to toally avoid "real" GMPC`s, I DID have some ind epth constructed NPCS running with my Players in various campaigns.
Some intentionally crafted to complement the group, some came along because they had valuable Knowledge, sone because the players just thought them fun to be around, some started out as enemies even!

Many were well liked, some seemed (I know they werent, but alas my palyers did not) too powerful and were loathed after a while.
One even came back from the Dead (in a setting where this is RARE) to try and save the paerty...which at that point was totally getting along ewithout her.
Accepted her back anyway. ;)



So yeah, I`d say the line between NPC and GOOD DMPC is the point where they are truly accepted as (semi)equal, full party member.


Lets not talka bout the "bad" versions, please? :smalleek:

goto124
2015-12-16, 10:06 AM
some started out as enemies even!

Digo may have something to say about romancing villains.

Âmesang
2015-12-16, 11:21 AM
Just don't go romancing the stone golems. :smalltongue:

Sajiri
2015-12-19, 01:10 AM
My DM has regular DMPCs that I am perfectly fine with, although these are all in single player campaigns. In one of them, he presented a large cast of NPCs, and the one that I ended up wanting around the most ended up becoming a more permanent DMPC..who happened to be a 10 year old kitsune boy avatar of murder. He's stupidly powerful and far more dangerous than my own character in a battle, he also turned out to be the son of the empress of an enemy nation who invaded my character's island with her entire fleet to try to take him back. That sounds like an awful red flag, except..

His more important background didnt come up until I began taking a strong like to this character, originally he was just going to be a minor npc. He's young an inexperienced and looks up to my character as a mentor, so he's not really all that powerful in comparison. I also got to have a say in his development, rather than the DM just making him into something strong in the way he wanted, his power depended on what I decided to teach him. I thought all this was perfectly acceptable. He did start getting to a point where he was stealing the show a bit, but I talked to the DM and he was fine to tone it down.

Another campaign had only one major npc, who right from the beginning I knew would be the dmpc. He began as being far more powerful and knowledgable than my own character, but the way that one worked was that my own was able to surpass him soon enough. Now that we're past the intro stage, that dmpc is mostly there to fill in the blanks of my own character (offer knowledge/skills she doesnt have), and for the most part doesnt make any kind of decision without mine/my character's consent. Also perfectly acceptable to me.

That one's also a fun trope breaker since he's the strong, burly ex military turned bounty hunter, who often gets rescued by the female love interest instead of the other way round.

Peat
2015-12-19, 04:09 AM
I think one thing that helps DMPCs is if they have something of a one track mind such as, say, an Elven Wizard whose answer to everything is "We need more information" followed by "Hmm, maybe it is time for action. Let us ambush them and fill their minds with terror!". That means, whenever the party ask the DMPC for advice, advice can be given and the group know that it's the character speaking, and not the GM speaking, because it's the character saying what the character always says. The fighter that always believes in keeping their word, the sorcerer that wants to solve everything with fire... that sort of thing. That seems to me the best balance between a complete mute that never ventures any opinion, and the guy whose always accidentally spoiling the battle.

But as pointed out, a DM that can't avoid metagaming probably has bigger issues than their DMPC to begin with.

TeChameleon
2015-12-19, 05:15 AM
Yeh, DMPCs tend to occupy a funny area in terms of how people think about them. I can't say I've got a lot of experience with them; my usual GM simply isn't the type to run a DMPC (as a player, he always seems to end up with some variant of an Elven Ranger... even in systems that don't actually have Elven Rangers >.O... and is mostly concerned with how to get the biggest possible numbers out of his bowshots). And while I used something that could be called an DMPC during my brief foray into DMing- it was an old character of mine from my last time playing the system- I never actually ended up having him join the party for anything. He just wound up WAY over his head, hired the party to help him find a place to go to ground, and that's about as far as that campaign got, since we're kind of round-robin DMing :/

*shrug*

I guess my take on the whole thing is that the DMPCs that seem to work out are the ones that are there to help tell the cooperative story, rather than the ones that are there to hand out the wrath of the DM upon his unworthy foes.

Esprit15
2015-12-19, 06:48 AM
Only encounter I had with a DMPC was two years ago, we met a gnome cleric while captured by drow. Most amazing healer ever, always kept us in one piece after the battle. Did nothing except for the occasional emergency "Don't die on me" patch up during combat. His role was to make sure the party stayed intact, and since nobody was pulling the usual healer duty, it didn't step on anyone's toes.

Played to fill supportive roles in the party, a DMPC works well.

EvilestWeevil
2015-12-19, 07:25 AM
I ran a Supers game at one point, and the "supervillain" PC, broke out a bunch of mooks to bolster his ranks. Some of the supers he busted out had incredible powers, and others not so much, but they were willing to fight for his cause (he was essentially Magneto, and wanted the supers to rule). In the end I had a mixture of DMPC's and good ole NPC's for them to interact with, and it was all based on how they tolerated his tyrannical rule. It gave me many options as far as backstabbing and providing information to the players. They were a lot of fun to play, and it made the player feel like his character was the tyrant he wanted him to be, so it worked out how we both wanted it too.

Cluedrew
2015-12-19, 08:31 AM
I don't have much insight to add to what has been said other than I have run PCs as the GM in most of the games I have run. It was also clear cut there because in those games we actually had a rule where anyone could control the NPCs if they maintained the characterization of the NPC. No one except me was allowed to touch my PC without explicate permission (same with the other player's PCs).

I never had any complaints with any of them. They were rarely/never overpowered because they were created with the other characters, often being the first one done to give everyone else a feel of what we are going for in this game. They tended to be knowledgeable so that I could introduce information through them where appropriate, but not all of them were and even the most intelligent didn't know everything. They were also never above the rest of the characters in power.

If it makes any difference we didn't even consider them "DMPC", it was just that the game master almost always ran a character as well as running the game. And this happened when others ran the other games, I don't have any complaints about those DMPCs either. Even the one that had some special one ups an the other characters it was usually nothing more than: I know what is going on, so I will tell you what is going on so that you too will know what is going on.

Fizban
2015-12-24, 04:48 AM
In this particular case, there's actually a fourth, much better option: the DMPC asks the party what he should prepare for the day, and the PCs ask the DMPC to prepare spells they think they might need, scribe scrolls, etc. They might still complain, but at that point if the DMPC didn't prepare the spell in question, that's mostly on them.


Valid choice. But at that point, he's becoming less a DMPC and more a GM-run cohort to the players. The more control over the DMPC the GM cedes to the players, the less it's a DMPC.
I'd split the difference again. Assuming the players want/DM wants+ everyone is okay with the DMPC, make them a changing specialist. Spellcasters obviously work, or some sort of Binder/Incarnum or multiclassing, or just Chameleon. The players give a general direction for what they want the DMPC doing, and the DM picks the spells/melds/etc to do the job-or the party asks for a specific effect, and the DM does whatever they like with the rest. But it all amounts to the same general advice of "have the players make a few guiding decisions" to keep some distance.

I normally expect the DM to have planned and balanced the encounter with full knowledge of the party, so they'll know how the battle should go and actually running a DMPC would be boring. With a variable character there's some room, but unless you deliberately bait the players into asking the DMPC for the wrong thing then weather or not you metagame battles will still likely go as expected +/- the usual luck. If the DM really wants to act like a player, then they should randomize parts of the dungeon. Make sure there's key points where player choices/results of choices will differ based on what's rolled (such as a fire or ice monster, a bruiser or swarm monster, an outsider or undead, etc), and don't roll them until a player interacts.