When to use a DMPC [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Gallowglass

2016-05-31, 02:06 PM

So to answer your question, we have to set parameters.

What is a DMPC?

A DMPC is a very specific subset of NPCs. Not all NPCs are DMPCs. There are several in game reasons there could be a NPC who travel with and aid the party.

1.The Party is escorting, aiding, rescuing or otherwise working with an NPC to accomplish a goal.
2.The Party is small and needs additional bodies.
3.The Party met an NPC in the course of an adventure and made the PLAYER decision to invite the NPC to join them in their travels.
4.The Party have hirelings that are not a character trait (animal companion, leadership feat, etc.)

These are all, at least partially, viable reasons to have an NPC with the party. Generally speaking you, as the DM should break it down to see if its really necessary.

1. The Party is escorting, aiding, rescuing or otherwise working with an NPC to accomplish a goal.

If this is an escort, aid or help quest, you the DM should ask yourself, is there some reason I couldn't use a PC or all the PCs to act as the agent in this story? I.E. do you really need Eristane the elderly preist to travel to the distant Alter of Alizahn to cast the ritual to cleanse the stormsea, or can you instead have one of the PCs given the mission to do so, perhaps with an artifact to allow them access to the ritual. Let the PC be the "hero", not just the bodyguard to the hero.

If this is a rescue mission or bodyguard mission, you should ask yourself "do I really need to make Princess Calliope a 7th level sorcerer? Or can she be a 3rd level commoner who therefore ISN'T going to impact during combat or be used as a spell catalog."

2.The Party is small and needs additional bodies.

This is never true. Never. If you have a party of 1 player, this is not true. I mean, its true if you are running a module I guess or a prewritten adventure, but if you are and you ABSOLUTELY must have four characters, then let the player or players run all 4 characters. If you are making up the adventure, and you have two players and one is a monk and one is a thief, then don't give them adventures that REQUIRE a cleric or a wizard to complete. This is not difficult to do. THis is simple. Your job is to build a world for them to interact in and to provide an adventure that fits their characters. If you simply can't wrap your mind around this fact and you absolutely insist they have to have more characters, then, again, let the players run the characters. Not you. If you have a party of a wizard and a bard or something and you think "I'll make a melee beatstick because they need one", just don't. jus't plain don't. You will be playign the game with yourself while they watch. Find a way to provide them with tasks and encounters that are NOT melee based.

3.The Party met an NPC in the course of an adventure and made the PLAYER decision to invite the NPC to join them in their travels.

This happens to me all the time. I politely beg off when I can, join them for a few racous adventures when I can't, or kill off the NPC if I can't get them to let the NPC go! Otherwise, if they just REALLY want the guy there, then this is probably the only time I find it okay to keep that NPC around. But not as a DMPC (which I will get to in a minute in point 4)

4.The Party have hirelings that are not a character trait (animal companion, leadership feat, etc.)

Assuming the PCs have gone to the market and CHOSE to hire these guys, then there you go. They are doing it to themselves at this point. Now here is where I talk about NPC vs. DMPC.

A DMPC is an NPC gone wrong. This is an NPC that the DM is TREATING like its her CHARACTER. That is always going to end bad (and many people are going to say "no way, it works with my group." Hey, good for you. I bet if we polled all your ex players we'd find a significant difference of opinion on that end.) Because the DM knows what's going on behind the scenes and is GOING to end up using her DMPC to drive the action because its soooo convenient to do so. Why drop clue after clue which the PCs ignore when you can just have the DMPC "find" the clue and interpret it for them? And, hey, every player wants their character to be cool and interestins, and if the DM is treating this NPC as her character, she wants it to be cool and interesting as well. But she has the ability to make it happen. I don't mean by cheating or fudging on rolls, I mean by subconsciously providing scenarios that her DMPC can excel in.

So, yeah, IMO, I don't think a DMPC is EVER a good idea. That doesn't mean their aren't edge cases where you might have a NPC or two hanging out with the party, but if you do, make sure its for a STORY reason (and that you have seriously contemplated whether a PC can fill that role) and/or that you treat them as NPCs and not as your own characters. They should ALWAYS defer to the PCs for decisions, they should NEVER be the one that "finds the special necessary information", keep their social skills low and if keep them for the minimum amount of time.

Lonesomechunk44

2016-05-31, 02:45 PM

imo, DMPCs are a difficult thing to use. Not that you shouldn't use them, but only use them VERY sparingly, and make them a level or two lower than the rest of the party. Of course, depending on the situation, its okay to give players a DMPC if its one fight that is supposed to be difficult and a "mentor" type of character swoops in to help, but then leaves. Overall, if you don't have to use them; don't. If you decided to do so, be careful

Flying Nostril

2016-05-31, 05:00 PM

There are also special cases. In my current group we are switching off who is the DM (there are 3 of us) every few character levels and each of us is running a character, so we are each running a DMPC at one point or another. We all agreed to do this and understood that the current DMPC is not meant to be in the spotlight and it has worked out well for over a year now. So you can use a DMPC and play with a DMPC if your group understands and you are mature about it.

That said, as a DM I have found the inclusion of NPCs as part of the party invaluable whether they are red shirts or an example of divine favor earned by the player's actions (Nothing quite like a Brelani Eladrin ally to help the PCs see the benefits of being good). I rarely run a game without an NPC, even if it is a low-level follower or adventurer wannabe or a support kind of character. I hesitate to call them DMPCs because they tend to be so fluid, either dying or leaving the group in some other way. When I do run a game without one it is typically for one of two reasons: either the group has no need of one to keep things interesting (I especially enjoy comic relief NPCs) or there are already plenty of players for the characters to interact with. They are like any other aspect of the game in that they can add a lot of fun if used properly and in moderation.

I like to play my NPCs as wheels within wheels: the longer the players encourage their presence the more real and solid that NPC becomes, with more backstory being revealed or other fluff as needed. If the players want to interrogate the tavern keeper about the town's goblin problems, he might become convinced that they mean business and ask to pick up a club and go adventuring with them. If the players say yes then is this a bad situation? Hardly--though the tavern keeper could be a venerable 6th level fighter that can do little more than swear at the goblins or a burly half orc commoner 8 with a mean streak a mile wide and a woodsman's axe to match. The real trick is to play the NPCs as fluidly and easily as the players do their characters while carefully preserving the "main character" roles of the PCs.

killem2

2016-05-31, 06:41 PM

Here are when you can use a DMPC:

1. When you are capable of separating your player characters knowledge from dungeon master knowledge.

2. When you are capable of managing that character as you would when you are not the DM while at the same time not taking away from your player's experience. If you can't handle your play group as it is, it would not be wise to add in another player character. No different than having trouble managing 3 characters at your table and allowed a 4th player to show up.

3. If you can do steps 1 and 2, then this would be where I would say, When you want to use them. It's your game just as much as the players sitting at it with you, if you want a player character then make a player character. Some DMs are forever set to a life of Dungeon Mastering and a DMPC is where you get to play the game.

A DMPC is a very specific subset of NPCs. Not all NPCs are DMPCs. There are several in game reasons there could be a NPC who travel with and aid the party.

No it isn't. It is a player character just like what you have your characters make. By virture of it being called a player character it cannot then also be a non-player character.

1.The Party is escorting, aiding, rescuing or otherwise working with an NPC to accomplish a goal.
2.The Party is small and needs additional bodies.
3.The Party met an NPC in the course of an adventure and made the PLAYER decision to invite the NPC to join them in their travels.
4.The Party have hirelings that are not a character trait (animal companion, leadership feat, etc.)

These are all, at least partially, viable reasons to have an NPC with the party. Generally speaking you, as the DM should break it down to see if its really necessary.

I can agree as a general rule, these are what you use NPCs.

Now here is where I talk about NPC vs. DMPC.

A DMPC is an NPC gone wrong. This is an NPC that the DM is TREATING like its her CHARACTER.

A DMPC is not an npc. Period. At all. Ever. It's a person, who want's to play a character in the adventure. And if you refer to the simple three steps I listed it is possible. Me rolling dice and making a character is not me treating an NPC like character. It is me playing my own character as if I was sitting down at the table and someone else is the DM. It is possible.

That is always going to end bad (and many people are going to say "no way, it works with my group." Hey, good for you. I bet if we polled all your ex players we'd find a significant difference of opinion on that end.)

God I would love if you did. Just to show how wrong you are. Because I can promise you, I have had a player character in my sessions that I was the DM of, and the only reason I don't do it now, is because I don't care for the paper work that comes along with it and I have a person who likes to DM every so many months so I can play too, so often enough that I don't feel I am missing out on playing PFRPG or DnD to warrant it. If this ever changed and I personally felt like I can handle it then I would do it again. You don't get to tell me that I can't make a character, because you have some predisposed notion that I am automacitally out to ruin your day if I make one.

Because the DM knows what's going on behind the scenes and is GOING to end up using her DMPC to drive the action because its soooo convenient to do so. Why drop clue after clue which the PCs ignore when you can just have the DMPC "find" the clue and interpret it for them? And, hey, every player wants their character to be cool and interesting, and if the DM is treating this NPC as her character, she wants it to be cool and interesting as well. But she has the ability to make it happen. I don't mean by cheating or fudging on rolls, I mean by subconsciously providing scenarios that her DMPC can excel in.

Common assumption and logically false. This is not a problem with a dungeon master haven’t their own player character. This is no different than Billy Barbarian acting as though he is William Wizard, despite his intelligent and wisdom sitting comfy in single digits.
Three simple rules man. If you can’t do number 1, then you shouldn’t make a player character… In fact you really shouldn’t even be playing table top games but that’s another tangent isn’t it?

So, yeah, IMO, I don't think a DMPC is EVER a good idea. That doesn't mean there aren't edge cases where you might have a NPC or two hanging out with the party, but if you do, make sure its for a STORY reason (and that you have seriously contemplated whether a PC can fill that role) and/or that you treat them as NPCs and not as your own characters. They should ALWAYS defer to the PCs for decisions, they should NEVER be the one that "finds the special necessary information", keep their social skills low and if keep them for the minimum amount of time.

Your opinion is noted, and categorized under the header Wrong as usual. Most dungeon masters brave enough to speak out that they have made their own player characters get so much hate on these boards. It doesn’t matter if I recorded entire sessions with my players having a good time and nothing being affected any different as a matter of course because people like you just have to complain.

Regardless, I feel I should indulge at least a little bit. My Player Character (because calling it a DMPC is just a misnomer) was created in a 3.5 dnd campaign I even made. It was even the first time I ever was a dungeon master. I was an evocation specialist. Nothing really fancy, he just was a gnome who was so much in love with his craft he let it get the best of him sometimes. (as shown by the feat that let you get stunned if you amped up your caster level) We played, we went into a dungeon, and my little wizard did, alright. I just stood around throwing damage spells just the same as our melee was throwing his sword around. We killed stuff. I rolled search checks and spot checks to try and find things. I role played alongside the players when they were role playing with NPCs. We had a good time.

I didn’t go and say, oh look a meta magic rod, how awesome for me. Or Look at this “dead wizard’s” spell book filled with all these evocation spells I wasn’t able to get yet. Yay me!
In the end, he died because I got ganked by a shadow that I hadn’t spotted. Yeah crazy huh, I actually rolled a dice with no fudging, to see if I would have even noticed the sneaking shadow. That was by level 4. I didn’t both with having the party rez me.
Because I didn’t feel like playing a character any more. And that’s the point, it was my choice to do so.

If you have any good, close, and self-respecting group of players, you should be able to trust that you Dungeon Master isn’t out to do something as lame as what you described above. And that is where this all really starts is before the game even begins. I grew up playing DND in the 90s, our DM played a character and it wasn’t a big deal. We never thought twice about it. Never concerned us. Sorry someone broke your heart. Time to get over it. Stop misleading the OP.

martixy

2016-05-31, 07:10 PM

killem's where it's at.

Just about the only post on the topic I've seen in quite a while that doesn't rehash the same old bull**** community wisdom.

Don't get me wrong, the community wisdom, that stereotype is there, because it's right more times than it is wrong. It's the safe, comfortable answer.

If you can follow #1, you're good with a DMPC.
#2 isn't even DMPC specific.

Seppo87

2016-05-31, 07:14 PM

Never. As a dm your focus should be the enjoyment of others.

If you feel that it makes dming unpleasant, you don't like dming.

Gallowglass

2016-05-31, 07:33 PM

stuff

Uh-huh.

So, Nerdhut, you have here two conflicting opinions and sets of advice.

I articulated mine, being very clear it was my opinion, but being very focused, blunt and clear as to my opinion.

Killem2 articulated his as a pointed personal attack on me while telling me "my opinion is wrong" (whatever that means)

I would think, as a 3rd party observer, that would tell you everything you needed to know about what kind of person he is. And hint you in on whether he is right that his players just love his characters or if he's self-delusional.

Either way, I would suggest that the route of our disagreement is in the fact that I think the DM is there to run the game and provide an experience for the players, not to be a player in his or herself. But then again, back in my teenage days in 1st and 2nd edition, I certainly always had my own PC. That was normal back then how we played. I just grew out of that as I got older. So your mileage may vary depending on how your group works. While I stated my opinion in very absolutist terms, its certainly more of a spectrum of experiences.

Either way, I would expect you will do what people do when they ask questions on the internet and parse all the opinions you get and take the advice as you will take it to make a more informed decision. I mean, if I haven't "misled you" or whatevs.

Troacctid

2016-05-31, 07:35 PM

I pretty much always run a PC when I DM. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, assuming the group is small enough that there's room. I am a player too, after all. I like building characters and I like playing them. Furthermore, it is a valuable outlet for playtesting my houserules, and playing different types of characters improves my understanding of the game.

Honest Tiefling

2016-05-31, 08:19 PM

I second all of this, although I think 1 and 2 can be done with garden variety NPC's and not a true DMPC. DMPC's are okay when they are required for the module/ap/game to function, but are never really seen or highlighted.

Yeah, that's true. I just wanted to toss out some ideas of when a DMPC could show up and then politely leave without too much derailment.

I pretty much always run a PC when I DM. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, assuming the group is small enough that there's room. I am a player too, after all. I like building characters and I like playing them. Furthermore, it is a valuable outlet for playtesting my houserules, and playing different types of characters improves my understanding of the game.

It may very be that the only time a DMPC should be used is when the players allow it. I personally find nothing wrong with the idea, but even I'll admit that I've had problems with DMPCs hogging the spotlight and making the game terribly unfun. Unfortunately, I don't think this experience is limited to the minority of players, which is why I think there's a lot of DMPC hate.

Ualaa

2016-05-31, 10:33 PM

Our group is doing Rappan Athuk.

I have an NPC, built with the same rules as the PCs.
This NPC tags along with the party, but never offers suggestions on where to go or what to do; that's up to the players.

In general RA is a nasty place, and a group kind of needs to be somewhat balanced, or at least to have all of the roles covered to have much of a chance.
We have had 63 deaths, through 58 sessions...

The NPC, could be considered a DMPC in that it is built the same as the PCs and is their level.
It fills whatever role they're weakest on.
If someone else decides to cover that role, so it is no longer the weakness of the party, once the NPC/DMPC dies... a different NPC/DMPC enters the scene that covers wherever they're weakest.

We have one player is loves to Tank.
To plug choke points and to make the bad guys go through his character to get to anything squishier.
We have another player that likes big damage numbers, so he almost always uses a 2H weapon with close to zero regard for his defenses; he once voluntarily moved into the middle of a 3x3 square, with unknown bad guys totally surrounding him and out of line of sight from the rest of the group -- he's had between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total deaths.
The other two players are between those two extremes, but both primarily focus on DPS as well.

The NPC/DMPC has predominantly focused on healing.
Or buffing.
Ideally, to do things that allows the party to shine in their roles.
They're the PCs, the stars of the show.
But the NPC/DMPC is there, same build rules, played as a supplemental character... who doesn't volunteer much, but might be the only one good with traps... although one of the players is now taking one level dips in Rogue with decent Perception/Disable Device for that role.

In short, the players are having more fun with all the roles covered (more or less), than they would without the NPC/DMPC present.
They're still the stars of the show.
They still decide where to go.
They solve the puzzles, riddles, problems, decide the combat tactics and have the spot light.

I'd call the supplemental character a DMPC, but it is an NPC.
It doesn't suggest a direction, give tactics, etc..., but does follow.

Shackel

2016-06-01, 03:33 AM

I'm throwing my hat in with Killem: you use DMPCs when you can separate the "DM" and the "PC".

Larrx

2016-06-01, 05:03 AM

I'm throwing my hat in with Killem: you use DMPCs when you can separate the "DM" and the "PC".

Can you ever actually do that though? Are the games I run that much different than everyone else's? In my games a lot of the fun, tension and drama come from making tough choices when faced with uncertainty. Even if we're only talking about the tactical combat parts of the game (where the uncertainty can stem from dice) there are light radii, hide checks, shapeshifters, invisibility, and a thousand other things that inject suspense. You can claim that you wont meta-game, but doesn't just knowing-but-not-acting-on drain the joy out of the experience? You're not getting the player experience, so what are you accomplishing?

I stand with Gallowglass. DMPC's are an inherent dysfunction, but there are plenty of reasons you might want to have an NPC hang out with the players for a bit.

Shackel

2016-06-01, 05:41 AM

Larrx

2016-06-01, 06:07 AM

At risk of sounding unnecessarily blunt about it, simply because you cannot or, rather, do not do it does not mean that others are incapable of it. Worse yet, you speak of what I can only describe as dramatic irony draining the fun. Some would actually find that hilarious.

I suppose "draining the fun" wasn't the best choice of words, and your point about dramatic irony is well taken. To clarify my position: when you try to be a PC in your own game, you are necessarily getting a different experience than the other players at the table. It might still be fun, but it's not the same. In fact, dramatic irony type fun is one of the kinds of fun that makes running NPCs enjoyable. Investigating the unknown, solving mysteries, and taking (non-dice) risks are fun player activities that the DM cannot truly participate in.

So . . . I guess what I don't understand is this: what distinguishes a DMPC from all the other NPCs the DM controls?

Oh, and I didn't find your post blunt. If I'm coming off antagonistic it's not intentional.

BWR

2016-06-01, 07:25 AM

So . . . I guess what I don't understand is this: what distinguishes a DMPC from all the other NPCs the DM controls?

.

DMPCs are part of the party. They get xp from overcoming challenges with the group and shares of the loot and glory and have input on what the party does as an (ideally) equal member.
NPCs are not part of the party. They may allied, opposed, neutral, work alongside or travel with the PCs but are not part of the group the game revolves around.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 07:42 AM

DMPCs are part of the party. They get xp from overcoming challenges with the group and shares of the loot and glory and have input on what the party does as an (ideally) equal member.
NPCs are not part of the party. They may allied, opposed, neutral, work alongside or travel with the PCs but are not part of the group the game revolves around.

That's what I thought, and that's where I think the problem is. There are a bunch of (sometimes spoken/sometimes not) assumptions about how players will have their characters behave during the game. They exist to make the game playable, and to avoid fights/hurt feelings. Not every table has all of these rules, and this list is not exhaustive, but here are some examples:

If there is an adventure to go on, all players will be included.
Loot will be divided fairly.
Information vital to the adventure/campaign will be shared freely among the party.
PCs will not steal from, betray, attack, or otherwise assault each other.
Each characters will be allowed a say in important decisions.

These protections exist to stop fisticuffs and boredom, but when applied to a DM controlled character it starts feeling very Mary Sue-ish. These 'rules' live in a space between players, not characters. Running a DMPC essential boils down to saying, "This character is part of the group, and there is nothing in game you can do about it."

It's . . . worse than railroading, right? Because it lasts forever?

zergling.exe

2016-06-01, 07:46 AM

Barstro

2016-06-01, 07:52 AM

I think the DragonLance Chronicles showed how a DMPC should be played.

Fizban was a thorn in the side for all the main characters (PCs). In hindsight, though, everything he did either prevented them from getting into TPK fights, led them to correct paths, or directly saved their lives. The fact that every single instance looked like lucky coincidence helped the PCs think that they were ultimately in charge.

weckar

2016-06-01, 07:58 AM

The only decent reasons I've ever found to run a DMPC were the following:

1. The DMPC needs to be escorted from A to B, and explicitly needs the party to accomplish this (generally will be several levels behind them).
2. The DMPC was hired or recruited by the party for a specific task on the players' initiative. For example: a trapmaster when they don't have one. A character such as this should perform little outside his designated role.
3. The DMPC is there for a short while only, to be kidnapped/die/evaluate the party and report back/betray them.
4. Those times when I run a game with only DMPCs, because I'm lonely.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 08:10 AM

Well let's say there is a pbp game with 5 players and a DM. Over the course of the campaign all 5 players have fun roleplaying, performing combat, dieing and other sorts of things. At the end the DM reveals that they were one of the players all along. No one suspected anything and it came as a total surprise. That character was essentially a DMPC the entire time, but everyone viewed them as an equal.

Was that wrong of the DM to do?

Well, is that a fair hypothetical? My stance is that a DMPC injures fun, and your premise is that a DMPC was great fun. I . . . reject your premise? But, okay, I'll try.

In my opinion the most important part of an rpg is choice. It's what separates it from other types of games. I also have fun with insight. That's from the player side. For the pbp DMPC to pull off the deception he would have to participate in choices, and claim insight over the course of the campaign. These would all be false because the DM knows the outcomes of choices and the accuracy of insights. Even if the DM could maintain the deception for a whole campaign, I would have to ask, "why bother?" To lead the PCs down certain paths? Edge them toward certain outcomes? I would argue that railroading by deceit is worse than the normal way.

But maybe you don't want to influence choice. You just want a PC. To maintain the deception you still have to rp and talk about important things (to which you know all the answers), so how do you decide your stance on issues, roll a die? This seems like a rather convoluted way to play a pbp game against yourself, and even limits your freedom. Why not just play a solo pbp game against yourself?

From a DM perspective (and I am almost always that, my players rarely run games themselves ) one of the most rewarding things that could happen is for my players to do something unexpected and make me scramble. Really flex those DM muscles. Why would I want to ruin that emergent storytelling by having a fake PC Wormtongue in their ear?

Also lying is kinda gross.

Faily

2016-06-01, 09:11 AM

That's what I thought, and that's where I think the problem is. There are a bunch of (sometimes spoken/sometimes not) assumptions about how players will have their characters behave during the game. They exist to make the game playable, and to avoid fights/hurt feelings. Not every table has all of these rules, and this list is not exhaustive, but here are some examples:

If there is an adventure to go on, all players will be included.
Loot will be divided fairly.
Information vital to the adventure/campaign will be shared freely among the party.
PCs will not steal from, betray, attack, or otherwise assault each other.
Each characters will be allowed a say in important decisions.

These protections exist to stop fisticuffs and boredom, but when applied to a DM controlled character it starts feeling very Mary Sue-ish. These 'rules' live in a space between players, not characters. Running a DMPC essential boils down to saying, "This character is part of the group, and there is nothing in game you can do about it."

It's . . . worse than railroading, right? Because it lasts forever?

Then again, it doesn't nescessarily have to be a problem for all groups. Some groups manage just fine to have DMPCs who are travelling with the party, without falling into the Mary-Sue trope or the DMPC railroading the game.

For an L5R campaign I ran, the group had the chance of asking for one NPC to accompany them on the adventure (which they had met in the first sessions) from a selection of three characters. They could choose to not have the NPC or DMPC (whatever you want to call it) come along with them, but they were almost all in unison eager to have the Fire Shugenja with them because they really liked that character from what they had seen of her before.

She was helpful, but didn't outshine the PCs (except the one time they actually did want her to outshine everything by calling down fire from the sky and set a castle on fire... they wanted a diversion), and offered advice from her standpoint on things (spiritual matters, lore and general honorable behaviour), but she was rarely a deciding factor because I also made it clear that the NPCs cannot offer advice or insight on something they don't know (like... the plot).

DMPCs can work, granted that the DM isn't looking at playing Mary Sue self-insert characters, and I've had generally good experiences with them as I've often felt they've provided more life to the game. And I say that as both GM and player.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 09:39 AM

Then again, it doesn't nescessarily have to be a problem for all groups. Some groups manage just fine to have DMPCs who are travelling with the party, without falling into the Mary-Sue trope or the DMPC railroading the game.

For an L5R campaign I ran, the group had the chance of asking for one NPC to accompany them on the adventure (which they had met in the first sessions) from a selection of three characters. They could choose to not have the NPC or DMPC (whatever you want to call it) come along with them, but they were almost all in unison eager to have the Fire Shugenja with them because they really liked that character from what they had seen of her before.

She was helpful, but didn't outshine the PCs (except the one time they actually did want her to outshine everything by calling down fire from the sky and set a castle on fire... they wanted a diversion), and offered advice from her standpoint on things (spiritual matters, lore and general honorable behaviour), but she was rarely a deciding factor because I also made it clear that the NPCs cannot offer advice or insight on something they don't know (like... the plot).

DMPCs can work, granted that the DM isn't looking at playing Mary Sue self-insert characters, and I've had generally good experiences with them as I've often felt they've provided more life to the game. And I say that as both GM and player.

And I would argue that was an NPC that accompanied the party. Those are fine, can be a surprise, are often awesome. There is a difference between a character that hangs out with and assists the party, and a DMPC. A DMPC has rights. The same rights as a PC. They cannot be left behind, they cannot be ignored, they cannot be opposed, they cannot be defeated. And when you decide that that's what you have made you have taken away player agency and that is sad. You have created a Mary Sue. It's not about outshining (which can work in some narratives!) It's that the character is inviolable. That's the problem.

weckar

2016-06-01, 09:41 AM

In ANY game I've been in, PCs have no such special rights.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 09:55 AM

In ANY game I've been in, PCs have no such special rights.

I have trouble believing that you are being honest. What happens when 4/5 characters decide to do x, and the 5th player disagrees? Does player #5 go home? Do they sit in the room bored? Do they throw some Monty Python in the VCR and try to ignore all the out of game information they're hearing? Does the DM split his attention and run two separate games?

Gaming is a social activity. I've never hosted a barbecue and invited vegans, and I would never host a game where some of players were not allowed to play.

This is instinct. Every player gets this. Every person gets this. If you don't allow a guest to participate, then your a !@#$. This is a truth whether you establish it as an official house rule or not. If no game you've ever been in had any of these rights, then you've never been in any kind of game (including simple card games).

Balmas

2016-06-01, 09:55 AM

In this discussion, I think it's crucial that we agree on what a DMPC actually is.

-Generally speaking, a DMPC is an NPC which the DM treats like a player character.
--As a general rule, the DMPC is the same or higher level than the PCs of the group, and has PC-level wealth.
--The DMPC has a say in what the party does. IE, "You can go haring off in that direction, but [DMPC] is going to [follow the plot railroad]."
--The DMPC takes a share of party treasure.
--The DMPC is not a one-off thing. He either stays with the party indefinitely or is a recurring character
-Often, the DMPC is not recruited by the party. He is introduced by the DM and then stays around because the DM wants her there.

I would say those are the two main warning signs of a DMPC: a character who is as good or better than the party, who is introduced to the party by force, and who sticks with the party forever.

If some of these are not met--ie, the PCs seek out a cleric who can help them clear a dungeon full of undead, who is a few levels lower than them and who disappears again once the quest is done--then it's generally an NPC, not a DMPC. Even if the NPC is fully fleshed out, fun, with a personality and desires, they remain an NPC instead of a DMPC.

In almost all cases, it is better to use an NPC than it is to use a DMPC. As a Dungeon Master, it is your job to help the players have fun. DMPCs, with rare exceptions, are less fun than an equally fleshed out NPC. QED, it is better for the game, for your players' enjoyment, that DMPCs should not be used.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 10:01 AM

weckar

2016-06-01, 10:07 AM

If we make the definition of any X a worst case of X, X will look bad.

zergling.exe

2016-06-01, 10:13 AM

Larrx

2016-06-01, 10:16 AM

If we make the definition of any X a worst case of X, X will look bad.

Indeed! But things do have definitions. I even looked to opponents for a definition of what a DMPC is! And I judge that specific definition to be bad. Is your argument that nothing is ever bad because the people framing their opinion think deeply about it and answer? Do you have an argument? Let's talk.

weckar

2016-06-01, 10:21 AM

Well, I'd like to propose a counterdefinition by semantics:
Depending on your view the DM is either a player or they are not. I don't care how you see this, but these are mutually exclusive interpretations.
Going by the idea that the DM is a player, the DM cannot control NPCs, as they are Non-player characters. Therefore, any 'NPC' is really a DMPC.
On the counter, if the DM is not a player, they cannot control a player character. Therefore, the DMPC is a Non-Player character.
Now, going by this - Either NPCs or DMPCs do not exist, although for the purposes of this thread we have agreed they do exist. So, by logic, they are one and the same.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 10:22 AM

weckar

2016-06-01, 10:24 AM

Larrx

2016-06-01, 10:28 AM

weckar

2016-06-01, 10:31 AM

My argument was meant to prove was that what you describe as a "DMPC" does not exist. It is an NPC.

Barstro

2016-06-01, 10:31 AM

weckar

2016-06-01, 10:35 AM

I hate to be arguing semantics on the definition of this debate, especially when the definition provided was provided by someone other than the Original Poster.

Just as you said that the prior definition, do you, is for Mary Sue, I'd say that your definition is not what I call a DMPC. While it very clearly is a PC that is run by the DM, it has no more negatives to it than a PC in a module run by a player who has already read the module. Provided the PC is played correctly (without use of the player/DM's foreknowledge) then there is no harm and the story is progressing organically. Your example of a DMPC is something that I quite possibly would never have a problem with.

IMHO, a DMPC is harmful when it is detracting from the story or fun of the players; generally by taking over the story by railroading for more than a limited period of time.If a DMPC is by definition harmful and otherwise not a DMPC... then what are we even arguing? Defining it by "it's a bad thing" renders the original question entirely moot - so it's a reasonably assumption that the OP would not use such a definition.

DarkSoul

2016-06-01, 10:36 AM

I know a lot of people hate DMPCs dominating a game. Especially when said character is more powerful than the rest of the party. But sometimes I feel like I need to bring an extra character along to provide motivation or guidance.

Does anyone have advice on how much is too much (or too little) when it comes to DMPCs?People don't like seeing a DM running a character as a character rather than an NPC hireling, ally, etc., for various reasons, most of which involve the domination of the game like you refer to. Most long-time players have a horror story or two about a DM that couldn't manage to play any kind of NPC without it taking over the game.

You feeling like you need to bring a character along for motivation or guidance doesn't mean you need to run a PC. It means you need an NPC that's going to fill those roles for you and be gone when they're no longer relevant to the story.

I think the only time a DM should run a PC in the group is when the members of the group rotate through the DM spot, so everyone gets a chance to play. The other possible instance would be if the party is very small (2 or less PCs aside from the DMs). If there are three PCs or more then no, the DM running their own character is unnecessary; the group can hire or ally with an NPC. Any time I see a DM saying "I want to play a PC too!" and it's not a game where they rotate through DMs I have to wonder why they'd want the extra work. The DM already gets to run every other person or monster in the game, why deal with the bookkeeping of a PC?

Larrx

2016-06-01, 10:38 AM

Again, those are all things PCs CAN do to other PCs. A PC doesn't need to trust the rest of the party. Given reason, they CAN attack other PCs. If a PC isn't pulling their weight, the character is left behind and a new character is rolled.
Just because they can't do such things at your table, doesn't make this a general rule.

Also: Boromir

http://angrydm.com/2014/05/respect-the-metagame/

It is a general rule. Because people know how to be kind to each other. It is rarely written down or stated explicitly, but it is a factor in any game you run. To pretend it isn't is to close your eyes.

weckar

2016-06-01, 10:41 AM

Whether players respect each other or characters do are entirely separate issues. A character can be a jerk while the player is a really nice guy. If the party (characters) can't deal with this, they will do something about it. Conflict in the party when it is justified is what makes a story believable. There is a REASON that 'no PvP' is a stated rule rather than an assumption in many calls for groups.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 10:45 AM

People don't like seeing a DM running a character as a character rather than an NPC hireling, ally, etc., for various reasons, most of which involve the domination of the game like you refer to. Most long-time players have a horror story or two about a DM that couldn't manage to play any kind of NPC without it taking over the game.

You feeling like you need to bring a character along for motivation or guidance doesn't mean you need to run a PC. It means you need an NPC that's going to fill those roles for you and be gone when they're no longer relevant to the story.

I think the only time a DM should run a PC in the group is when the members of the group rotate through the DM spot, so everyone gets a chance to play. The other possible instance would be if the party is very small (2 or less PCs aside from the DMs). If there are three PCs or more then no, the DM running their own character is unnecessary; the group can hire or ally with an NPC. Any time I see a DM saying "I want to play a PC too!" and it's not a game where they rotate through DMs I have to wonder why they'd want the extra work. The DM already gets to run every other person or monster in the game, why deal with the bookkeeping of a PC?

Even when the party is small, an NPC is better. A PC (or DMPC) is a piece of the protagonist. An Npc can be a foil, or an obstacle, or an opportunity for character growth, or a door into an alternative resolution, or . . . or . . . or. A DMPC is a part of the party and acts as the party acts and wins or loses with the party and is useless narratively.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 10:47 AM

weckar

2016-06-01, 10:51 AM

Larrx

2016-06-01, 11:04 AM

How they respond to PLAYERS and to PLAYER CHARACTERS should be entirely separate as well.
As for the Angry Article you linked - I find myself completely disagreeing with most of what is written there. The character in that article proposed by Aaron could exist just fine: if the party doesn't take him along, either Aaron's character goes off on his own adventure (to eventually intersect with the rest of the player characters) or he rolls up a different character they WILL take along.

But . . . but . . . you realize that in that circumstance that one person . . . a player . . . a real flesh and blood human being . . . will be sad. He'll feel left out. He'll have to sit and watch and be sad. If the DM runs a solo adventure for him, then the other players will have to sit and watch and not play. If he has to create a new character . . . well . . . that's complicated too. After all, his last character was rejected. He might need to discuss things with the other players and the DM to make sure to make sure it's acceptable. But they're busy playing the game s/he's not playing.

It's uncomfortable. Most players, completely untrained, will act to avoid that uncomfortable situation.

Trying to make them behave the same way towards a DMPC is . . . evil?

Telonius

2016-06-01, 11:04 AM

To me, DMPCs are a "Use only in emergency" sort of thing. Super-new, super-small groups are probably the only time I'd be comfortable using one. Basically, if they absolutely need more bodies and none of the players are capable of/willing to keep track of more than one character sheet at a time.

weckar

2016-06-01, 11:08 AM

But . . . but . . . you realize that in that circumstance that one person . . . a player . . . a real flesh and blood human being . . . will be sad. He'll feel left out. He'll have to sit and watch and be sad. If the DM runs a solo adventure for him, then the other players will have to sit and watch and not play. If he has to create a new character . . . well . . . that's complicated too. After all, his last character was rejected. He might need to discuss things with the other players and the DM to make sure to make sure it's acceptable. But they're busy playing the game s/he's not playing.

It's uncomfortable. Most players, completely untrained, will act to avoid that uncomfortable situation.

Trying to make them behave the same way towards a DMPC is . . . evil?No, they will not be sad. Because players know how to separate their emotions from their character's. Everything not being happy let's-all-get-along funtimes in a party of characters is part of the game too.

Then again, for reference: I don't play with anyone who has not at the very least graduated highschool. So it could be a maturity thing.

Barstro

2016-06-01, 11:10 AM

If a DMPC is by definition harmful and otherwise not a DMPC... then what are we even arguing? Defining it by "it's a bad thing" renders the original question entirely moot - so it's a reasonably assumption that the OP would not use such a definition.

The original question is "When to use a DMPC"

A request to clarify what a DMPC is, with potential definition (D1) was given. This definition presented a hypothetical what would sometimes be bad.
Another statement said that the above definition was not a definition of DMPC, and suggested a different definition (D2).
I then stated that D2 would not bother me at all. Making the original question's answer "always". Since that isn't much a of debate, I suggest that D2 is not the correct definition.

Your response statement began with;
If a DMPC is by definition harmful
AND otherwise not a DMPC...

Those two statements are, on their face, contradictory, and cannot lead to a discussion. As you pointed out, the first part of the statement "a DMPC is by definition harmful" means the answer to the original question "never" and likewise leads to a pointless debate. It still comes down to the definition. Until that is agreed upon, half the camp with say that a DMPC is bad because v.A is bad, while others will say that a DMPC is fine, because they do not consider v.A to be a DMPC, and think only that v.B is a DMPC.

My definition/example is of a PC, run by a DM, that I do not find inherently harmful. The heart of the question, to me, is when is it reasonable for a DM to use that PC in a railroad type fashion. I think the answer has an allowable answer if for a very limited period of time. However, I agree that such a thing could probably also be done through use of obvious NPCs. The difference to me is that NPCs saying "no, really, don't go in there" is obvious and reminds me of bad books/tv. Whereas a DM controlling a PC under the auspices that the party needed to be rounded out who on rare occasions prevents the party from opening the door to a black hole is can be a good thing.

weckar

2016-06-01, 11:13 AM

apologies for that internal contradiction: I meant to insert 'is' before that otherwise. In other words: "is a prerequisite".

Larrx

2016-06-01, 11:20 AM

No, they will not be sad. Because players know how to separate their emotions from their character's. Everything not being happy let's-all-get-along funtimes in a party of characters is part of the game too.

Then again, for reference: I don't play with anyone who has not at the very least graduated highschool. So it could be a maturity thing.

4 players show up to a table. They want to play D&D. One of the players characters is deemed unacceptable to the group. He is not allowed to play. His character was never in the game, and will never be played, and no longer exists, and has no emotions. The player showed up to play D&D and now cannot. He is sad. His character is not. The other players (who for the purpose of this exercise are his friends, and care for him, and want to play D&D with him) are also sad. They have lost something. It was their fault. They feel guilt. This is how these situation play out. Players will bend over backwards to avoid just this thing and they do it all the time.

Expecting them to treat DMPCs with the same consideration is wrong.

I'm in my mid-forties. I remember when elf was a character class, and I don't want this to turn personal, so please stop.

Doug Lampert

2016-06-01, 11:54 AM

4 players show up to a table. They want to play D&D. One of the players characters is deemed unacceptable to the group. He is not allowed to play. His character was never in the game, and will never be played, and no longer exists, and has no emotions. The player showed up to play D&D and now cannot. He is sad. His character is not. The other players (who for the purpose of this exercise are his friends, and care for him, and want to play D&D with him) are also sad. They have lost something. It was their fault. They feel guilt. This is how these situation play out. Players will bend over backwards to avoid just this thing and they do it all the time.

Expecting them to treat DMPCs with the same consideration is wrong.

I'm in my mid-forties. I remember when elf was a character class, and I don't want this to turn personal, so please stop.

I've read your own AngryGM article, it does not agree with you, at ALL. He says that the guy demanding that other people's PCs act out of character to make his character fit in and go on the adventure is WRONG!

He says that it is YOUR JOB to make a character that gets along with others! That is in your AngryGM article! It's what he starts with. It is point ONE of the metagame you are supposed to respect is to NOT REQUIRE other characters to treat your character as special. So no. I reject your assertion that such special treatment is necessary or desirable and I use your reference as evidence that it is neither necessary nor desirable.

The AngryGM TELLS YOU that the guy making a character that requires others to accommodate him is holding the game hostage and is UTTERLY WRONG!

So yes, if you bring a character the others don't want to associate with, then you need to bring a different character. AngryGM tells you that too, he tells you a character that doesn't fit with the group WITHOUT any additional special consideration in play is "not allowed to bring that character. Because it is NOT his prerogative. Not at my game."

I quote again: "And this is why a good DM – like Chris – understands and respects the metagame. A good DM doesn’t want a situation where the only thing keeping the party functioning as a team is the fact that the game requires it."

But this thing where you treat all the PCs as special snowflakes and only keep the party together because they are PCs is EXACTLY what you are claiming is necessary!

You're trying to insist that you are allowed to bring that character and that everyone else needs to accommodate you so there will be a game. Not true at all. You are EXACTLY the guy he's complaining about.

weckar

2016-06-01, 12:03 PM

I'm in my mid-forties. I remember when elf was a character class, and I don't want this to turn personal, so please stop.You made it personal the moment you even implied the way I play the game is 'wrong'.

Gallowglass

2016-06-01, 12:46 PM

I've read your own AngryGM article, it does not agree with you, at ALL. He says that the guy demanding that other people's PCs act out of character to make his character fit in and go on the adventure is WRONG!

He says that it is YOUR JOB to make a character that gets along with others! That is in your AngryGM article! It's what he starts with. It is point ONE of the metagame you are supposed to respect is to NOT REQUIRE other characters to treat your character as special. So no. I reject your assertion that such special treatment is necessary or desirable and I use your reference as evidence that it is neither necessary nor desirable.

The AngryGM TELLS YOU that the guy making a character that requires others to accommodate him is holding the game hostage and is UTTERLY WRONG!

So yes, if you bring a character the others don't want to associate with, then you need to bring a different character. AngryGM tells you that too, he tells you a character that doesn't fit with the group WITHOUT any additional special consideration in play is "not allowed to bring that character. Because it is NOT his prerogative. Not at my game."

I quote again: "And this is why a good DM – like Chris – understands and respects the metagame. A good DM doesn’t want a situation where the only thing keeping the party functioning as a team is the fact that the game requires it."

But this thing where you treat all the PCs as special snowflakes and only keep the party together because they are PCs is EXACTLY what you are claiming is necessary!

You're trying to insist that you are allowed to bring that character and that everyone else needs to accommodate you so there will be a game. Not true at all. You are EXACTLY the guy he's complaining about.

Doug,

I feel like the point that Larryx was trying to make has been lost in translation,

From what I have read, Larryx agrees with the article. That, as a social convention, its better if all the PCs make characters that A> want to be part of the team and B> want to play in the game/plot being presented.

But what he seems to be trying to say is that, when that DOESN'T happen, when one of the players shows up with his antagonistic, PvP, lone-wolf, "I'm wolverine, mutha****a!" ******* of a character instead of being told by the other players "Hey, go sit over there and make a new character that isn't a ****", MOST players and DMs instead sigh, shoulder their distaste and put up with it so that everyone can play including the one guy who made the ******* character.

I agree with him on one level. Yes I DO think that a sizeable percentage of PCs and DMs do exactly that. suck it up and put up with it rather than be confrontational and put the game on hold so that player 1 can either make an attitude adjustment or leave.

But while I think that DOES happen, I certainly don't think its a good or beneficial behavior. I don't think it does do the players, the DM or the game any good in the long run to do so. That player with the jerk character should NOT be given special agency or special license or be the antagonist and troublemaker.

Now, Wreckar, who says he disagrees with the article, says that he thinks such a character could work just fine in a group. *shrug* I don't feel I'm making a personal attack or am "implying the way he plays the game is wrong" by simply disagreeing with him but, based on his last post, maybe he does. Maybe he thinks disagreeing with him _IS_ by its nature an implied personal attack. Its gotta be a hard time on the internet if you think that though, lol.

Play your game your way. Find tables of people who like to play with you and play the way you like to play. As long as you're having fun and the people you are playing with are having fun, you're not "playing the game wrong."

None of that, however, really has to do with DMPCs. Larryx again, seems to be suggesting that when the DM plays a PC and it crosses the line into being the objectionable character, that players seldom have the ability to say "hey, go sit in the corner and make a new character" because IF the DM is the kind of guy who has a mary-sue or objectional PC, chances are the DM isn't going to respond well to criticism and, as the DM, has the agency to be retributive. That's what I took out of the point he was making.

Again, I agree that that DOES happen a sizeable portion of the time. But I still don't think its worth putting up with. Walk away. Or have the confrontation up front rather than "putting up with it" for the sake of cohesion.

Hopefully, the OP (who hasn't posted since his starting post AFAIK) can now see the contentiousness that exists around this issue. There is absolutist and angry rhetoric on both sides of the argument. But like all advice, it comes down to "it might work for your group, it might not. Depends on your group."

weckar

2016-06-01, 12:55 PM

Excellent recap of the topic, Gallowglass. I'd +1 if such were an option here :smallsmile:

DarkSoul

2016-06-01, 12:59 PM

Even when the party is small, an NPC is better. A PC (or DMPC) is a piece of the protagonist. An Npc can be a foil, or an obstacle, or an opportunity for character growth, or a door into an alternative resolution, or . . . or . . . or. A DMPC is a part of the party and acts as the party acts and wins or loses with the party and is useless narratively.Honestly, anything the DM runs is an NPC by definition, unless the DM becomes a player at some point. The distinction, to me, between a run-of-the-mill NPC and a DMPC is a matter of levels and/or equipment, and longevity. If the character is there regularly, takes a full share of xp and treasure, and is comparable in level and gear then it falls in the latter category.

Incidentally, your definition of DMPC there could easily be applied to a cohort.

I don't disagree with you that a regular NPC is more appropriate in almost every case. I do think that the distinction between an NPC and a "DMPC" is probably dependent on the group, too. What you think is the DM running their own personal character in the party might be an exceptional NPC in mine. It really comes down to what the non-DM players in the group feel is appropriate.

Barstro

2016-06-01, 01:00 PM

Wow. Such assumptions

1) But . . . but . . . you realize that in that circumstance that one person . . . a player . . . a real flesh and blood human being . . . will be sad.
2) He'll feel left out. He'll have to sit and watch and be sad.
3) If the DM runs a solo adventure for him, then the other players will have to sit and watch and not play.
4) If he has to create a new character . . . well . . . that's complicated too. After all, his last character was rejected.
5) He might need to discuss things with the other players and the DM to make sure to make sure it's acceptable. But they're busy playing the game s/he's not playing.

6) It's uncomfortable. Most players, completely untrained, will act to avoid that uncomfortable situation.

7) Trying to make them behave the same way towards a DMPC is . . . evil?

1) I've had characters rejected because they did not fit the beginning of the story. It's just like in middle school where my character (me) did not fit the story of "a girl will go on a date with you". If ONLY I were able to roll a new character and give him some STR and CHA. Roleplaying is about a story. If there is a character at the very beginning who does not fit the story, he is kicked out. That's why Papa Smurf is not in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

2) OR, he can roll a new character. Heck, he could have asked the DM and other players what they were doing to make sure his character fit (everything in the first place).

3) Why should the DM run a solo adventure for someone who brought a CE character on the encounter called "Paladins do the Right Thing"?

4) Yep, it's complicated. Maybe next time he'll ask (before he rolls some character that might not fit the rest of the group that someone EVERYONE ELSE managed to do correctly).

5) "Hey, I'll roll something new. What fighting role should I play for the group? Ok. Any suggestions for a Class? Oh, yeah, I've wanted to play one. I'll spend the time building my character and listening to you guys so I can pick up when my character is ready."

6) "It's uncomfortable. Most players, completely untrained, will act to avoid that uncomfortable situation." Let's change that slightly; "Most people, will act to avoid that uncomfortable situation". That's the point. Bringing a non-cohesive PC into the game would be uncomfortable for the other PCs if played correctly. If you really want to roleplay it out, you can. But in the end, the dweeb WILL be rejected by the cheerleader.

7) Trying to make the party behave the way suggested by you to ANY character is wrong. Strongarming it because it's the DM's character does not make it better. Saying it's unfair to make one person sad so instead everyone except that one person should be punished is an incorrect solution if there is another albeit somewhat time consuming way for the original person to be happy again.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 01:06 PM

Doug,

I feel like the point that Larryx was trying to make has been lost in translation,

From what I have read, Larryx agrees with the article. That, as a social convention, its better if all the PCs make characters that A> want to be part of the team and B> want to play in the game/plot being presented.

But what he seems to be trying to say is that, when that DOESN'T happen, when one of the players shows up with his antagonistic, PvP, lone-wolf, "I'm wolverine, mutha****a!" ******* of a character instead of being told by the other players "Hey, go sit over there and make a new character that isn't a ****", MOST players and DMs instead sigh, shoulder their distaste and put up with it so that everyone can play including the one guy who made the ******* character.

I agree with him on one level. Yes I DO think that a sizeable percentage of PCs and DMs do exactly that. suck it up and put up with it rather than be confrontational and put the game on hold so that player 1 can either make an attitude adjustment or leave.

But while I think that DOES happen, I certainly don't think its a good or beneficial behavior. I don't think it does do the players, the DM or the game any good in the long run to do so. That player with the jerk character should NOT be given special agency or special license or be the antagonist and troublemaker.

Now, Wreckar, who says he disagrees with the article, says that he thinks such a character could work just fine in a group. *shrug* I don't feel I'm making a personal attack or am "implying the way he plays the game is wrong" by simply disagreeing with him but, based on his last post, maybe he does. Maybe he thinks disagreeing with him _IS_ by its nature an implied personal attack. Its gotta be a hard time on the internet if you think that though, lol.

Play your game your way. Find tables of people who like to play with you and play the way you like to play. As long as you're having fun and the people you are playing with are having fun, you're not "playing the game wrong."

None of that, however, really has to do with DMPCs. Larryx again, seems to be suggesting that when the DM plays a PC and it crosses the line into being the objectionable character, that players seldom have the ability to say "hey, go sit in the corner and make a new character" because IF the DM is the kind of guy who has a mary-sue or objectional PC, chances are the DM isn't going to respond well to criticism and, as the DM, has the agency to be retributive. That's what I took out of the point he was making.

Again, I agree that that DOES happen a sizeable portion of the time. But I still don't think its worth putting up with. Walk away. Or have the confrontation up front rather than "putting up with it" for the sake of cohesion.

Hopefully, the OP (who hasn't posted since his starting post AFAIK) can now see the contentiousness that exists around this issue. There is absolutist and angry rhetoric on both sides of the argument. But like all advice, it comes down to "it might work for your group, it might not. Depends on your group."

It has a bit I think. I believe that there is a level of interaction above the game that I have detailed in this thread, and is talked about in the link.

I don't make any value judgments about this, I simply register that this exists.

I have deduced from this very thread that the difference between an NPC and a DMPC is that a DMPC forces players to treat it like a PC (including all of these often unspoken rules).

I think this is unfair and broken. An NPC should be a game object that the characters can interact with in whatever way seems most fit, not a special protected class like other PCs.

Again. I'm not making value judgments about how players treat each other . . . I'm just recognizing that there is a difference between how players treat each others characters and how characters treat NPCs and this is good.

Therefore DMPCs are bad, use NPCs instead.

Is that better?

Gallowglass

2016-06-01, 01:10 PM

Excellent recap of the topic, Gallowglass. I'd +1 if such were an option here :smallsmile:

See? We disagree, but we still get along.

Hug it out bitches.

Barstro

2016-06-01, 01:12 PM

...the difference between an NPC and a DMPC is that a DMPC forces players to treat it like a PC (including all of these often unspoken rules). Therefore DMPCs are bad, use NPCs instead.

Is that better?

If you consider a DMPC to be a disliked character that the party must keep, then all DMPCs are wrong to have.

I like your analysis, but pose a slight change to the question since I cannot come up with an answer; how is your interpretation of DMPC any different from the GFoDMPC (girlfriend of the DM's PC) that behaves the same way?

Larrx

2016-06-01, 01:12 PM

You made it personal the moment you even implied the way I play the game is 'wrong'.

This is a thread discussing when it is appropriate to use DMPCs.

My stance is 'never' and so I disagree with your stance of 'not never.'

Yes, I believe that your ideas are wrong, but that is not personal. I didn't, for example, claim that your ideas were wrong because you were a *consults thesaurus* cannibalistic fascist with a spelunking fetish. That would just be ridiculous.

I disagreed with your ideas without insulting the source of those ideas. You must see the difference, right?

Barstro

2016-06-01, 01:13 PM

See? We disagree, but we still get along.

Hug it out bitches.

Fine, but I'm not hugging the DM. :smallyuk:

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-01, 01:14 PM

Why drop clue after clue which the PCs ignore when you can just have the DMPC "find" the clue and interpret it for them?
If you honestly cannot resist the temptation, then yes, I agree, you should not have a DMPC.

But (the dreaded words!) it's worked out fine for my group. We rotate DMs, so often the DM will have a character in the group.

Basically, that character will become passive. If the party asks him to do something, he will do it. If they ask him for advice, he will give it. If they forget obvious information, he'll point it out.

He never ever solves puzzles. He does not help plan stuff. He does not get a vote when the party does something. He does not have extra information. He is never stronger than the party. He is never cooler than the party. And the party can dump him whenever they want.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 01:19 PM

If you consider a DMPC to be a disliked character that the party must keep, then all DMPCs are wrong to have.

I like your analysis, but pose a slight change to the question since I cannot come up with an answer; how is your interpretation of DMPC any different from the GFoDMPC (girlfriend of the DM's PC) that behaves the same way?

The GF doesn't have full knowledge of the scope of the game, cause and effect, right and wrong, etc.

At least, typically not. If she does then it's essentially a two DM situation where one is just in charge of a single character.

Also, GFoDMPC usually comes with an assumption of preferential treatment, I haven't really talked about that because I believe the DMPC is problematic enough even absent such things, but yes, such things are bad.

ETA: Also, and this may just be my personal bias, I think DMs should be better than that. Players are sometimes new and inexperienced, but the DM should know better.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 01:28 PM

If you honestly cannot resist the temptation, then yes, I agree, you should not have a DMPC.

But (the dreaded words!) it's worked out fine for my group. We rotate DMs, so often the DM will have a character in the group. It's always worked out fine for us.

Basically, that character will become passive. If the party asks him to do something, he will do it. If they ask him for advice, he will give it. If they forget obvious information, he'll point it out.

He never ever solves puzzles. He does not help plan stuff. He does not get a vote when the party does something. He does not have extra information. He is never stronger than the party. He is never cooler than the party. And the party can dump him whenever they want.

Sure. If your doing a rotating DM thing there really isn't another easy option is there? I mean we did a thing once where the narrative of the game was about a guild the players belonged to and we had rotating rosters of characters as well as rotating DMs, but you can't always do that.

So if you rotate DMs than DMPCs might be a necessary evil. They're still not ideal, and I would never advise someone to use them under normal game conditions.

TheIronGolem

2016-06-01, 01:35 PM

The fact that my attempts to kill off or write out my DMPC's have been met with active resistance by my players tells me that DMPC's can, in fact, be appropriate to a game.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 01:43 PM

The fact that my attempts to kill off or write out my DMPC's have been met with active resistance by my players tells me that DMPC's can, in fact, be appropriate to a game.

Can you provide more details? Sometimes DMs use DMPCs as training wheels, and it would make sense that a group of players wouldn't want to lose that*. That wouldn't qualify the use of DMPCs as a general rule, but rather as something that should be phased out after it has served its purpose.

*I'm not saying that is what's going on (I don't know what's going on) it's just an example of how players not wanting it to stop does not mean it shouldn't.

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-01, 01:45 PM

The fact that my attempts to kill off or write out my DMPC's have been met with active resistance by my players tells me that DMPC's can, in fact, be appropriate to a game.

Same.

When I took over as DM, I was worried my character would overshadow the group. So I had him captured by a bad guy.

Once the party found out, they stopped what they were doing, tracked him down, broke into the bad guy's house, fought their way down to the torture chamber, and rescued him. It was somewhat unexpected and... kind of flattering? They could've just let him die.

They also robbed the place blind, though, so maybe they just wanted some gold.

EDIT:

More details-- my character was a rogue. They already have two characters with trapfinding and lockpicking skills, so they didn't really need him. I think they just like roleplaying with him. Or maybe they just see him as part of the group and didn't want to leave him behind. Who knows.

To be honest, I think they were just playing their characters. The cleric is his best friend, the fighter is his love interest, and the pirate is his drinking buddy. So naturally they rescued him.

Dousedinoil

2016-06-01, 02:04 PM

I have a DMPC in my game, we'll sort of. When my players came asking about leadership, I modified it a little bit and allowed them one cohort between the entire party. He's always 2 levels below the rest of the party and he isn't game breaking so it doesn't overshadow the rest of the characters.

Not only does it allow me to spark conversations and roleplay in but it is a great tool for when new players want to come sit in for a session. They get to play a simple character and the other players are already familiar with what he can do. Last time I hardly had to teach the new player as the rest of the players did it for me.

The cohorts last a while but it gives me a chance to show players all the different classes that are available when a cohort dies.

As long as the DM doesn't see himself as equal, I think it's a great idea.

Larrx

2016-06-01, 02:11 PM

Same.

When I took over as DM, I was worried my character would overshadow the group. So I had him captured by a bad guy.

Once the party found out, they stopped what they were doing, tracked him down, broke into the bad guy's house, fought their way down to the torture chamber, and rescued him. It was somewhat unexpected and... kind of flattering? They could've just let him die.

They also robbed the place blind, though, so maybe they just wanted some gold.

EDIT:

More details-- my character was a rogue. They already have two characters with trapfinding and lockpicking skills, so they didn't really need him. I think they just like roleplaying with him. Or maybe they just see him as part of the group and didn't want to leave him behind. Who knows.

To be honest, I think they were just playing their characters. The cleric is his best friend, the fighter is his love interest, and the pirate is his drinking buddy. So naturally they rescued him.

This is a charming story, and it's seems pretty close to how I would have handled the situation. It is not an example of a DMPC according to the definition I've been working with (the one I find troubling). The moment you acknowledged a possibility other than 'this character will be with the party forever, as an equal, and there's nothing you can do about it' you're straying into NPC territory regardless of whether s/he had been a PC in the past.

What you described is completely unobjectionable. Fun even. And you are not one of the folks I'm arguing against (although I would question why you call your ex-rogue a DMPC instead of an NPC).

Barstro

2016-06-01, 02:37 PM

The GF doesn't have full knowledge of the scope of the game, cause and effect, right and wrong, etc.

But that was not one of your criteria. You stated that what makes a "dreaded" DMPC is "a DMPC forces players to treat it like a PC (including all of these often unspoken rules)". None of the said rules (that I admittedly glossed over) seem to talk about utilizing said knowledge. I suggest to you that if a DM is not utilizing forbidden knowledge, then the DM is merely playing a role in the story. It is only in the misplaying that the DMPC becomes bad.

But, we are each of us entitled to our views.

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-01, 03:06 PM

I would question why you call your ex-rogue a DMPC instead of an NPC.
Sure. Let me explain.

In my opinion, this is an PC:

*They're a permanent member of the group. They can die, retire, or get kicked out, but otherwise they stay with the party.
*They have their own backstory and personality.
*The player roleplays them.
*The story is about them.

This is an NPC:

*They might have their own backstory, but it usually doesn't matter much.
*They aren't part of the group. They might join temporarily for a quest, but that's it.
*The story is not about them.

My rogue fits the definition of a PC better than an NPC. He's limited in a lot of ways, because he doesn't help with puzzles or planning, but he's always with the group. He's a protagonist.

Quertus

2016-06-01, 03:27 PM

I know a lot of people hate DMPCs dominating a game. Especially when said character is more powerful than the rest of the party. But sometimes I feel like I need to bring an extra character along to provide motivation or guidance.

Does anyone have advice on how much is too much (or too little) when it comes to DMPCs?

Having been in several groups that did the whole "rotating DM" thing, I have seen a lot of DMPCs. I've seen it done well, and I've seen it done poorly.

Done well, if I told the story, you would not be able to tell which PC's player was the DM.

Done poorly... well, there's a lot of ways to do it wrong. You might be somebody's DMPC horror story if...

Your character levels faster

Your character gets more treasure (including, say, multiple artifacts, while no one else gets anything)

The other NPCs treat your character better than the party / better than they deserve / etc.

Your character suddenly has all the mad skills / your characters skills or abilities are exactly what is needed to solve the quest / etc.

If your PC tends to hog the spotlight, you probably have other problems, but your PC also probably won't be remembered fondly as a DMPC.

As to this specific situation, of using a dmpc to provide motivation and guidance, I'd say this is probably one of the worst uses for a dmpc. Unless the party consists exclusively of particularly unmotivated preteens, who are also your children, in which case it should work just fine. Otherwise, I'd recommend trying to find some other way to provide motivation and guidance. YMMV.

Troacctid

2016-06-01, 03:47 PM

Done poorly... well, there's a lot of ways to do it wrong. You might be somebody's DMPC horror story if...

Your character levels faster

Your character gets more treasure (including, say, multiple artifacts, while no one else gets anything)

The other NPCs treat your character better than the party / better than they deserve / etc.

Your character suddenly has all the mad skills / your characters skills or abilities are exactly what is needed to solve the quest / etc.
Isn't the whole point of a DMPC that they follow the same rules as a PC? Can you even call a character a DMPC if they aren't treated like a PC? At that point, it seems to me they'd just be an NPC.

Efrate

2016-06-01, 03:49 PM

I think DMPCs can be ok, but never a SUE style of DMPC.

My current group found a cleric in a previous adventure, they rescued him, he helped them out, and he provided the none-to subtle push to move onto the next adventure. He went with them. He in combat role was hit things with moringstar. His out of combat role is user of cure light wounds wands, and buff spells, all the 2nd level buffs spells on the party, as many as he can. He never makes decisions the players should, thought he does yell at our ranger for being an idiot on occasion, and ultimately functions as a buffbot and healbot. Also occasionally as a tank because platemail. With normal initiative doesn't matter much to be fair. After the quest was done, his role was to be done, but the party all wanted him to stay and liked him. They begged, offered him treasure, and were willing to help do the work of his God. So he stayed. Turning down the loot.

Same role in the current adventure, but it works. I do my best to more be a big piece of armor in combat, and an early morning buff, and user of wands. Nearly died in an ambush by rogues but the pcs saved him despite taking 4 sneak attacks to the face, they all worked to save him. He has personality as I like to think all my NPCs do, and motivations to go along with them. At the end of the current adventure I will attempt to retire him again, but I expect the same situation.

Problems arrive when DMPCs gets more/better loot, hog the spotlight, solve all the problems, and generally act like a stronger better PC, OR when they conflict DM knowledge with player knowledge. My DMPC cleric always lets the group decide, doesn't get a vote (5 man party makes a majority pretty easy to come by thankfully) on any courses of action, but stays as a supporter in the back lines.

It works, but I have seen to many horror stories and sues where it becomes about having an audience for your personal power fantasy, and not letting the PCs be the heroes of the story. That is totally wrong, as is making decisions with DM knowledge as a PC. In certain scenarios, or with very small parties, I think its definitely acceptable however.

BWR

2016-06-01, 03:59 PM

And I would argue that was an NPC that accompanied the party. Those are fine, can be a surprise, are often awesome. There is a difference between a character that hangs out with and assists the party, and a DMPC. A DMPC has rights. The same rights as a PC. They cannot be left behind, they cannot be ignored, they cannot be opposed, they cannot be defeated.

I don't know how your games work but PCs in ours are constantly opposed and sometimes defeated. Sometimes they are left behind, sometimes they are ignored. The only difference between these DMPCs and PCs is who is running them. Otherwise they act and are treated as any other PC. We expect players to not make decision based on OOC knowledge, we expect all PCs to get roughly the same value of and useful loot, we expect players to work as a team. A character run by the DM is no different. It may often be harder (especially since DMs are generally preoccupied with running the rest of the world), which is why we don't often use DMPCs, but it is not by any means impossible to have good DMPCs.
Is your position "DMPCs are wrong because they are wrong, never mind that some people make them work?"
Because for the life of me that is all I can get.

Balmas

2016-06-01, 07:21 PM

To me, this is not a DMPC, this is a Mary Sue. A Mary Sue is not a DMPC, because a Mary Sue is a NPC+. They act independently of the party rather than as part of it.

A DMPC, to me, has no special privileges merely for being run by the DM. They are of comparable level to the PCs (depending on xp gained), have comparable wealth (sharing with the party), and an equal say in what the party does (not 'Do what I tell you servants'). They participate as any PC would.They are the Dungeon Master's PC. A player character. Not a mobile plot device.

My question to you is, "Why does the dungeon master need to play a PC?" His focus should be on his players, on building them up, on making the world enjoyable for them. Introducing a DMPC reduces your ability to give them the spotlight.

Well, I'd like to propose a counterdefinition by semantics:
Depending on your view the DM is either a player or they are not. I don't care how you see this, but these are mutually exclusive interpretations.
Going by the idea that the DM is a player, the DM cannot control NPCs, as they are Non-player characters. Therefore, any 'NPC' is really a DMPC.
On the counter, if the DM is not a player, they cannot control a player character. Therefore, the DMPC is a Non-Player character.
Now, going by this - Either NPCs or DMPCs do not exist, although for the purposes of this thread we have agreed they do exist. So, by logic, they are one and the same.

It is crucial to recognize one thing, I think. PCs and NPCs are fundamentally different, and are explicitly treated differently by the game. As such, saying that a DMPC and an NPC are the same thing and arguing around that semantics is a fundamentally flawed proposition.

? Yes, the DM is not a player. He is a DM. He controls NPCs. The idea that the DM could control a PC is, as you have observed, a dysfunction. It doesn't work. That, strangely, is what we're taking about.

Exactly. The DM controls NPCs for the benefit of the players in the game. When he elevates an NPC to PC status, this detracts from the players of the game. DMPCs are, almost by definition, dysfunctional.

Just as you said that the prior definition, do you, is for Mary Sue, I'd say that your definition is not what I call a DMPC. While it very clearly is a PC that is run by the DM, it has no more negatives to it than a PC in a module run by a player who has already read the module. Provided the PC is played correctly (without use of the player/DM's foreknowledge) then there is no harm and the story is progressing organically. Your example of a DMPC is something that I quite possibly would never have a problem with.

IMHO, a DMPC is harmful when it is detracting from the story or fun of the players; generally by taking over the story by railroading for more than a limited period of time.

You actually make a good point. If it is possible for a DM to run a DMPC exactly as he would a normal PC--ie, with no foreknowledge, metagaming, favor for the DMPC over another PC--then it could be alright. Merely alright, as in, not worse than if he were indulging in DMPC self-pleasuring. A DMPC could be alright IF-and only if:
-The DM can completely isolate himself from his PC, not favoring him in any way, shape, form
-The DM can completely isolate what he knows from what his PC knows, which I'd argue is almost impossible
-The actual PCs are okay with a diminished share of the limelight because of an extra PC.

People don't like seeing a DM running a character as a character rather than an NPC hireling, ally, etc., for various reasons, most of which involve the domination of the game like you refer to. Most long-time players have a horror story or two about a DM that couldn't manage to play any kind of NPC without it taking over the game.

You feeling like you need to bring a character along for motivation or guidance doesn't mean you need to run a PC. It means you need an NPC that's going to fill those roles for you and be gone when they're no longer relevant to the story.

I think the only time a DM should run a PC in the group is when the members of the group rotate through the DM spot, so everyone gets a chance to play. The other possible instance would be if the party is very small (2 or less PCs aside from the DMs). If there are three PCs or more then no, the DM running their own character is unnecessary; the group can hire or ally with an NPC. Any time I see a DM saying "I want to play a PC too!" and it's not a game where they rotate through DMs I have to wonder why they'd want the extra work. The DM already gets to run every other person or monster in the game, why deal with the bookkeeping of a PC?

And I would argue that even when you have a group with a rotating DM, the DM-of-the-week has a duty to not hog the spotlight with his PC.

Troacctid

2016-06-01, 07:57 PM

My question to you is, "Why does the dungeon master need to play a PC?" His focus should be on his players, on building them up, on making the world enjoyable for them. Introducing a DMPC reduces your ability to give them the spotlight.
I don't need to. I want to. It's a good way to try out new character concepts and playtest homebrew stuff.

You actually make a good point. If it is possible for a DM to run a DMPC exactly as he would a normal PC--ie, with no foreknowledge, metagaming, favor for the DMPC over another PC--then it could be alright. Merely alright, as in, not worse than if he were indulging in DMPC self-pleasuring. A DMPC could be alright IF-and only if:
-The DM can completely isolate himself from his PC, not favoring him in any way, shape, form
-The DM can completely isolate what he knows from what his PC knows, which I'd argue is almost impossible
-The actual PCs are okay with a diminished share of the limelight because of an extra PC.
None of these is anything resembling difficult. You should already be doing the first two with every character you control, PC or NPC, DM or player. As for the third, it's not meaningfully different than introducing a new player to the group.

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-01, 10:32 PM

My question to you is, "Why does the dungeon master need to play a PC?"
In my group, DMPCs have added to the experience, not detracted.

- They can fill in skills the rest of the party might not have.
- A good character is fun to interact with, no matter who plays them.
- As a DM, you can use them to remind the party about information they might have forgotten.
- You can use them to impart new information.
- They can preform boring tasks. Someone needs to stay behind to guard a prisoner? The DMPC can do it.
- Best of all, once the DMPC has outlived her usefulness, you can have the villian brutally murder her.

The important thing is that a DMPC should never take the spotlight. You aren't there to show off your cool shiny character. You're there to help the heroes shine.

Haluesen

2016-06-02, 12:41 AM

Wow there sure is a lot going on in this thread. I would like to try to address some of the points people here have brought up about DMPCs (for and against) but there's so much it's hard to know where to start. I guess I will just give my experiences and see if they help. Or are interesting. Or something like that. I dunno, this is just a topic that's close to me so I felt like I should say something.

In one of the earliest games I ran as a DM for 3.5 D&D I did make a character of some sort to help the players out, because they were both new to the game entirely and I was still fresh as a DM and because there were only 2 players so they needed some sort of character to heal and deal with locks, or so we all figured at the time, so I made a simple bard and we let him have Open Lock as a class skill. I had no intentions or anything with him starting out, other than a crutch to help them understand the game. I let them make all the choices of where to go, what to do, and how he could help outside combat. In combat he did his little (frequently ineffective, but that was just bad rolls combined with no character optimization at all) fighting with a rapier. And of course I gave him a personality, because all NPCs that will be around for more interaction than just a shopping trip should be rememberable somehow.

By a few adventures and some levels into the game they just accepted him as a member of the group. He was integral to them. The adventures were still all about their characters, never him. He was not the combat powerhouse or the sorcerer supreme, but he gave them health and handled a few standard things like detecting magic and speaking languages they couldn't. And he was fun to act out now that he had a thoroughly made personality. He was more than a simple NPC because I worked on actually knowing what I was doing as he grew stronger and he mattered to my players, but he never stole the spotlight in terms of story or roleplay or power. Heck, he ended up being the group joke in a way, often the butt of practical jokes which I took in stride because it fit the group dynamic. Even when both players each ended up with another character to work with he stayed...though admittedly on that end I am not sure why. They never suggested keeping or getting rid of him, there was no conscious decision from my players or myself. So it can be done in a way that favors the players and doesn't end up Sue-ish.

I will admit though there were trials with it. Not everything runs perfectly, especially with my first long-running game. At one point the bard did have an adventure that centered on him where he needed the help of the other players, and though it was just another adventure that we all have fun with I would not recommend doing such a thing, I wouldn't again even with letting the other 2 make all the major choices. I also ended up with a group of NPCs that I let the players get to switch in and out as needed for a particular thing. These really were NPCs, with little backstory and no decisions that the other 2 didn't make for them, but I still advise against a thing like that if it can be helped. Keeping the stats in line with the others was a hassle and took too much bookkeeping. Sure said NPCs were not factored into loot or exp, so nothing was taken from the PCs, but still it didn't feel worth it in the end except for a couple small cases.

tl,dr: It can be done well but should not be a forced thing. Let the players run the story, and a little side character like that can add a lot of fun for everyone. But maybe that doesn't work for some people, and that's okay. Different stroke for different folks is the phrase I believe. I disagree fundamentally with the people here who say it can't be done and should never be done, but I hold no ill-will (unless you're being jerkish and stubborn about it, but then we have a problem for different reasons :smallannoyed: ). But I've seen it worked. I've done other games with those 2 people (because our schedules just happen to work well that way but apparently not with most of our other friends) and now they expect me to play a character when I am running games with them. If your group enjoys it, you enjoy it, and you work it responsibly then there is no reason why a DM/GM can't run a character to work closely with the players.

Jon_Dahl

2016-06-02, 12:54 AM

I would say never. Just... never.

Larrx

2016-06-02, 08:27 AM

I don't know how your games work but PCs in ours are constantly opposed and sometimes defeated. Sometimes they are left behind, sometimes they are ignored. The only difference between these DMPCs and PCs is who is running them. Otherwise they act and are treated as any other PC. We expect players to not make decision based on OOC knowledge, we expect all PCs to get roughly the same value of and useful loot, we expect players to work as a team. A character run by the DM is no different. It may often be harder (especially since DMs are generally preoccupied with running the rest of the world), which is why we don't often use DMPCs, but it is not by any means impossible to have good DMPCs.
Is your position "DMPCs are wrong because they are wrong, never mind that some people make them work?"
Because for the life of me that is all I can get.

I believe they can be made to work. I just think that there is, almost, always a better way. It's the 'we expect players to work as a team' part that I think is at best a crutch for a DM. Why should a DM created and controlled character receive such consideration? You treat other players that way because of the social contract, but if you're asked to treat a DM controlled character that way it limits player agency. I think we can do better.

Larrx

2016-06-02, 08:48 AM

But that was not one of your criteria. You stated that what makes a "dreaded" DMPC is "a DMPC forces players to treat it like a PC (including all of these often unspoken rules)". None of the said rules (that I admittedly glossed over) seem to talk about utilizing said knowledge. I suggest to you that if a DM is not utilizing forbidden knowledge, then the DM is merely playing a role in the story. It is only in the misplaying that the DMPC becomes bad.

But, we are each of us entitled to our views.

It was, although to be fair I don't think you were here for that part. Somewhere in the first page I was trying to nail down what the definition of a DMPC was, and what distinguished it from an NPC. That was one of the things. I wasn't trying to make a case that poorly played characters were bad, but only that PCs recieved special allowances, and NPCs or DMPCs should not recieve those same considerations.

To address your specific point: How is a poorly played PC any different than a poorly played NPC? (if I've paraphrased you correctly)

It's about privilege and limiting player autonomy. If a PC brings an obnoxious character to the table, then he will be more likely to be tolerated than if he were met, as an NPC, on the street. Why? Because everyone at the table recognizes that people have taken time out of their day to drive and sit and be present, and it would be impolite to tell them to go home because their character is objectionable. For a DM controlled character (one of thousands! But this particular one) to expect those same, completely out of game, protections limits the space of choices. There are things that you can't do to the DMPC. You can't leave them behind is the big one, but usually there are more.

Even the hypothetical perfect DMPC limits player agency, but there's no such thing as perfect, right? An exceptionally role-played, non-scene-stealing, non-combat-winning, non-meta-gaming hero might be disliked by a player because that character has a backstory of hating Orcs. In the DMPC situation, the Orc hater can't tell the DMPC to go home. Why not? Why not just have an NPC instead?

Larrx

2016-06-02, 09:04 AM

Sure. Let me explain.

In my opinion, this is an PC:

*They're a permanent member of the group. They can die, retire, or get kicked out, but otherwise they stay with the party.
*They have their own backstory and personality.
*The player roleplays them.
*The story is about them.

This is an NPC:

*They might have their own backstory, but it usually doesn't matter much.
*They aren't part of the group. They might join temporarily for a quest, but that's it.
*The story is not about them.

My rogue fits the definition of a PC better than an NPC. He's limited in a lot of ways, because he doesn't help with puzzles or planning, but he's always with the group. He's a protagonist.

I think this is a good, workable definition. I would argue that the common definition (at least as I've seen in this thread) leaves out the caveats you added to 'permanent member of the party.' The fact that you were willing to let the character be abducted and lost, fought for and saved, or any other possibility that might have occurred because players never do what you expect, pushed the character into NPC zone rather than DMPC, and was fun game-mastering.

The 'story is about' stuff is fun too, and I haven't talked about this yet, but the PCs should be the protagonists. Letting a DMPC be one is one of the worst dangers of using one. I haven't spoken about his because it doesn't always happen, and I think I have a case without it, but it is certainly one of the reasons people have issues with the whole concept of DMs running a PC.

Larrx

2016-06-02, 09:26 AM

tl,dr: It can be done well but should not be a forced thing. Let the players run the story, and a little side character like that can add a lot of fun for everyone. But maybe that doesn't work for some people, and that's okay. Different stroke for different folks is the phrase I believe. I disagree fundamentally with the people here who say it can't be done and should never be done, but I hold no ill-will (unless you're being jerkish and stubborn about it, but then we have a problem for different reasons :smallannoyed: ). But I've seen it worked. I've done other games with those 2 people (because our schedules just happen to work well that way but apparently not with most of our other friends) and now they expect me to play a character when I am running games with them. If your group enjoys it, you enjoy it, and you work it responsibly then there is no reason why a DM/GM can't run a character to work closely with the players.

I only only quoted this part, but I read the not-to-long/did-read stuff, I promise.

And this is my last one for a bit, I promise.

Of course running a character that works closely with the players can work. The problem only crops up when you insist that the character is a PC. It's shouldn't be. You've described an NPC that happens to spend time with the party, as far as I can tell. I've tried to avoid repeating it, but Gallowglass' first post is really spot on about this sort of thing. I wish I had written it. NPCs are okay. NPCs that spend all of their time with the party and help them fight is okay. Deciding, as a DM, that the character you wrote and play is not an NPC, but instead is a player character that should be treated with the same care as your actual tablemates, is . . . wrong. So don't do it. Your not doing it, and I don't want you to conflate yourself with the people I'm arguing against.

Also, pretty much the same to Elliot (hope I spelled that right) above, but I said this was going to be my last one. For a while :)

Hecuba

2016-06-02, 10:25 AM

My 2-bits.

I'm assuming that we define a DMPC as a major character, allied with the party, which participates in encounters with the party through much (if not most) of the campaign.

With that definition, there are some interesting narrative avenues that warrant a DMPC: as such, I won't say they are inherently a bad thing.
The problem is that DMPCs are hard to do well and easy to do poorly: they require that you are able to take a back seat both in both the narrative and the gameplay.

One example that I think was done well by a DM I played with a while back: the party was charged with escorting an Ambassador from a church who was attempting to negotiate a truce for a very bloody war. The Ambassador was a reasonably mid-level Apostle of Peace (which some flexability on VoPoverty): in strict mechanical terms, he was probably more powerful than the party. Between his diplomatic restrictions and his vows, however, his actions were highly curtailed: he was dependent on the party, not the other way around.

That last part is highly important. By any reasonable measure of the game world, the Ambasador was more important than the party. He had a greater impact on the outcome of the war. He was more powerful. He was higher ranking. But the campaign was not his story.

DMPCs should, generally, be something like a McGuffin in humanoid form. They may be the protagonist of another story -- perhaps even one happening at the same time -- but they should not be the protagonist of the party's story.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention another kind of DMPC that I use on a regular basis: the PC of the person who happens to be DM this session for a group that rotates DM duties.

This makes good practice for running the other kind of DMPC, but I don't recommend jumping directly into DMing combat against yourself.
Instead, start at the top of this list and work down.
Start with having another player run the PC in combat when you DM. This should be based on explicitly articulated guidelines for how the character should behave.
Get comfortable running another player's PC when they DM based on the same.
While DMing, pay attention to what decisions you make regarding NPC actions and figure out what you should be actively excluding from the player knowledge of your PC if you were playing him/her.
Then, consider working on playing your PC while you DM.

Larrx

2016-06-02, 10:52 AM

I don't need to. I want to. It's a good way to try out new character concepts and playtest homebrew stuff.

None of these is anything resembling difficult. You should already be doing the first two with every character you control, PC or NPC, DM or player. As for the third, it's not meaningfully different than introducing a new player to the group.

Should you though? The second one bugs me a bit. Imagine a fighter faces a translucent apparition. The player realizes that it's a ghost and thus immune to his mundane weapons. The player thinks that his character would guess this as well, but he doesn't want to be accused of meta-gaming, so he what? . . . wastes a round whiffing? . . . backs up and throws some holy water? It's harder to separate in-game knowledge (or even identify what qualifies as that) from out-of-game than you suggest.

Also, for what it's worth, I've played in games where I knew some things. I knew that orcs had a fierce attack and if it crit it could end any low level character. I played in a game once where I knew (or suspected) that NPC X wasn't the big bad because his class hadn't been printed yet when the module was written.

I've never played in a game where I knew every thought, retraction, plan, story element, moment of plot, and intimate knowledge of every designed encounter. And ways improvisation might go if players went off the rails. And every consequence of any action. All the resolutions. All the secrets. The complete throughput of the campaign and all the ways it might end.

That's a little different that what a player has to do to avoid meta-gaming right? It's not common to every character. It's an unusual and perhaps insurmountable burden.

Also, it is different when the DM does it. The DM and the players have different roles. If a novel character is introduced in a movie I'm watching, then I can tell the difference between that, and an unexpected friend sitting down beside me. Players treat other players differently than they treat PCs. Because they should. That's how ttrpgs work.

And now I renew my promise to stop posting? Sigh . . . apparently this matter to me more than I thought? I'm hopeless.

Quertus

2016-06-02, 01:02 PM

Should you though? The second one bugs me a bit. Imagine a fighter faces a translucent apparition. The player realizes that it's a ghost and thus immune to his mundane weapons. The player thinks that his character would guess this as well, but he doesn't want to be accused of meta-gaming, so he what? . . . wastes a round whiffing? . . . backs up and throws some holy water? It's harder to separate in-game knowledge (or even identify what qualifies as that) from out-of-game than you suggest.

Also, for what it's worth, I've played in games where I knew some things. I knew that orcs had a fierce attack and if it crit it could end any low level character. I played in a game once where I knew (or suspected) that NPC X wasn't the big bad because his class hadn't been printed yet when the module was written.

I've never played in a game where I knew every thought, retraction, plan, story element, moment of plot, and intimate knowledge of every designed encounter. And ways improvisation might go if players went off the rails. And every consequence of any action. All the resolutions. All the secrets. The complete throughput of the campaign and all the ways it might end.

That's a little different that what a player has to do to avoid meta-gaming right? It's not common to every character. It's an unusual and perhaps insurmountable burden.

Also, it is different when the DM does it. The DM and the players have different roles. If a novel character is introduced in a movie I'm watching, then I can tell the difference between that, and an unexpected friend sitting down beside me. Players treat other players differently than they treat PCs. Because they should. That's how ttrpgs work.

And now I renew my promise to stop posting? Sigh . . . apparently this matter to me more than I thought? I'm hopeless.

No one can roleplay perfectly. That doesn't mean that we should just stop role-playing altogether.

Similarly, a DMs lack of perfect RP should not prohibit then from every running any NPCs - which would be a logical extension of this line of thought.

A dmpc, properly roleplayed, is not an issue in this regard - certainly buy compared to a poorly roleplayed PC.

But . . . but . . . you realize that in that circumstance that one person . . . a player . . . a real flesh and blood human being . . . will be sad. He'll feel left out. He'll have to sit and watch and be sad.

That exact same logic, applied to character death / paralysis / petrification / KO / other forms of incapacitation, is why I advocate allowing players to play multiple characters.

Trying to make them behave the same way towards a DMPC is . . . evil?

Actually, it's Lawful. :smalltongue:

Larrx

2016-06-02, 02:37 PM

No one can roleplay perfectly. That doesn't mean that we should just stop role-playing altogether.

Similarly, a DMs lack of perfect RP should not prohibit then from every running any NPCs - which would be a logical extension of this line of thought.

A dmpc, properly roleplayed, is not an issue in this regard - certainly buy compared to a poorly roleplayed PC.

That exact same logic, applied to character death / paralysis / petrification / KO / other forms of incapacitation, is why I advocate allowing players to play multiple characters.

Actually, it's Lawful. :smalltongue:

:smallsmile:

Your points are well taken, and I seem to have wandered off my main point again. The things you quoted are part of my 'a DMPC is not really a PC, and doesn't feel or play as one' argument. From what you've said, I don't think we really disagree on that point. I was just trying to define what we were talking about in the thread with that stuff. Also, I was trying to demonstrate that players treat other PCs with special consideration.

So, to try to clarify: A DMPC does not allow the DM to also play. Too much of the rpg experience relies on uncertainty, and the DM cannot have the same experience as the other players at the table.

If a DMPC is not a PC, then what separates it from any other NPC? It is a full and equal member of the party. That means it benefits from the same unspoken rules (social pressures) that the real PCs do.

If Adam, Beth, and Carol all hate David's character than they are likely to bring David's PC along regardless because they like David and want to include him in the fun (please don't get hung up on the specifics here, it's just an example. I know different groups have different tolerances for this stuff, but social pressures do exist).

If Adam, Beth, Carol, and Dave all hate the DMPC Eric than they have to take him along regardless (if the above is true, and this is not, Eric is a normal acceptable NPC). This is the part I think is bad. It limits player agency for . . . I can't really see any benefit.

That's my argument. I made these points in greater detail on page one I think?

I hope that clears things up, and I apologize for being all over the map sometimes (I'm replying to a bunch of folks and sometimes my wires get crossed).

Hecuba

2016-06-02, 02:52 PM

That's a little different that what a player has to do to avoid meta-gaming right? It's not common to every character. It's an unusual and perhaps insurmountable burden.

It's certainly a very different burden, but it is by no means insurmountable. The key (in my humble highly egotistical opinion) is that you need to have very concrete ideas about how the character should react, including how they approach combat, so that you have firm lines to guide the character's actions when you have to make an on the fly call.

As a general rule, if you can't detail the DMPC's behavior well enough that you would be able to hand it over to a player to run and get similar results, you probably haven't detailed the behavior well enough that I would be comfortable running it as a DMPC myself.

That brings up another good point: if you have a DMPC or similar, consider whether or not you can simply rotate control of the character through the players (especially in combat). There may be a reason you don't want to: for example, perhaps the character is withholding information from the PCs and revealing enough of it to let them run the DMPC with fidelity would be a problem.
But understanding why you don't want to have the players run the DMPC is a good way to understanding whether the DMPC is appropriate for the table at all.

Droopy McCool

2016-06-02, 03:05 PM

Quite a bit to read to catch up, but here we are. I just want to point out something I noticed. Everyone here has said, in one way or another, the same thing. DMPCs are not cool if they are better than the PCs. I believe this, you all keep saying it, and it doesn't really matter what defines a DMPC at this point. It's not cool for an NPC to overshadow the PCs either. Simple, then, to just say:

If you, the DM, have a character (DMPC or NPC), and said character is explicitly better than the PCs, you're doing it wrong.

Please don't fly at me with excuses and corner-cases, because having the NPC Cleric rain fire on a city (clearly something the PCs couldn't do), if it fits the narrative, is fine. My statement applies to DM/NPCs that can always outshine, outclass, or out-skill the PCs.

McCool

Florian

2016-06-02, 03:15 PM

To add an additional POV:

When playing a setting with vastly different social or ideological norms from what we´re used to, a DMPC can help to showcase what those are all about. If hard choices are involved, that too can be showcased.

Eisfalken

2016-06-03, 02:38 AM

As a DM, I follow a very strict rule: There are no "DMPCs". There are only NPCs. The PLAYERS are the focus of the game. They are the stars of the show. I'm just the director and writer who makes sure that this week, they have a good time matching wits against other NPCs.

Doesn't mean I don't use the NPCs to drive the narrative and/or action. I just realize that I'm not there to play a character, I'm there to play the world around the players.

Larrx

2016-06-03, 12:13 PM

It's certainly a very different burden, but it is by no means insurmountable. The key (in my humble highly egotistical opinion) is that you need to have very concrete ideas about how the character should react, including how they approach combat, so that you have firm lines to guide the character's actions when you have to make an on the fly call.

As a general rule, if you can't detail the DMPC's behavior well enough that you would be able to hand it over to a player to run and get similar results, you probably haven't detailed the behavior well enough that I would be comfortable running it as a DMPC myself.

That brings up another good point: if you have a DMPC or similar, consider whether or not you can simply rotate control of the character through the players (especially in combat). There may be a reason you don't want to: for example, perhaps the character is withholding information from the PCs and revealing enough of it to let them run the DMPC with fidelity would be a problem.
But understanding why you don't want to have the players run the DMPC is a good way to understanding whether the DMPC is appropriate for the table at all.

The meta-gaming obstacle only has to be surmountable if the character is a (DM)PC. As you've noted, if the DM has an idea for a character, and if that character has hopes and dreams, and if that character has personal goals and learned behaviors, and if that character travels with the party through many adventures, there still isn't a real problem.

There is a problem if this character is, in the DMs mind, special. Inviolate. I . . . so, so much . . . don't want people to understand from the things I've said that I hate NPCs in general.

This is what I believe: There should not be a separate caste of NPCs that are different-from/better-than any other NPC.

To add an additional POV:

When playing a setting with vastly different social or ideological norms from what we´re used to, a DMPC can help to showcase what those are all about. If hard choices are involved, that too can be showcased.

You can showcase setting things with an NPC (he may travel and fight with the party, that's Okay). Even more important(!) you can't use a DMPC to showcase the hard choices.

This is a super important point. I've spoken (briefly) about how the DMPC limits players, but it limits the DM too. Todd the NPC can profess his love for the marginalized loyalist faction, and while the PCs might fault the extreme actions of that alliance they don't want to lose an ally, so they're faced with a hard decision. Todd the DMPC can't serve that role. He can't be abandoned or betrayed.

This is meant as an example of how an NPC is always preferable to a DMPC.

As a DM, I follow a very strict rule: There are no "DMPCs". There are only NPCs. The PLAYERS are the focus of the game. They are the stars of the show. I'm just the director and writer who makes sure that this week, they have a good time matching wits against other NPCs.

Doesn't mean I don't use the NPCs to drive the narrative and/or action. I just realize that I'm not there to play a character, I'm there to play the world around the players.

So much this.

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-03, 12:59 PM

Larrx

2016-06-03, 01:50 PM

@Larrx: I get where you're coming from, and I agree with you on everything. Discussions like these are complicated because everything has their own definition of what a DMPC is.

In my mind, a DMPC is merely a party member that the dungeon master is attached to. It doesn't necessarily mean they get the same special privileges as other party members.

I think a DMPC is okay as long as they have certain limitations: they are not protected from death, they never take the spotlight, they are the same level or lower level, and they receive no special consideration. The party can kill them, dump them, or side against them, and all of that is okay. But in your opinion... that's not a DMPC, that's an regular NPC.

Anyway, it sounds like we're on the same page about what is acceptable and what is not. It's just that my idea of a DMPC is different from yours.

And that's a little weird, right? I agree with most everything that you've written. What does 'is attached to' mean in your world. You mentioned it. You know it's a thing that is real that changes games. What is your definition?

I do think, when presented with the question, that many members of the community might have difficulty arriving at a consensus. But that's not important, is it? It's hard to find a common, agreed upon, definition of what a DMPC is, but it seems that everyone knows (in their heart) that DMPCs are a thing that happens. They are not regular NPCs, they are something else.

What are they? Why are they not NPCs? (and they are aggressively not in most games, even the best usually only manage a half-head-tilt toward story). So what are they? Ego?

So, you're working. You imagine that one of several things might grow out of the new circumstances that the players have found themselves in the well of. Maybe they're steadfast! Maybe they doubt. Maybe they flee . . . and abandon the fight. If you're the DM you want to place multiple options right in the space between their neck and their mouth, right? And make them find their own path?

A DMPC corrupts that. They have to do what the DMPC wants, right? They're obligated to continue with h'she despite their own emotions. Is this good storytelling?

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-03, 02:16 PM

And that's a little weird, right? I agree with most everything that you've written. What does 'is attached to' mean in your world. You mentioned it. You know it's a thing that is real that changes games. What is your definition?

I don't know. It's an emotion, so it's hard to define.

I become emotionally invested in my PCs. I think most people do. I mean, it's hard to describe what emotional investment is, but it definitely exists.

The Insanity

2016-06-03, 06:27 PM

Pretty much like anything else in the game - when it doesn't detract from anyone's fun.

Hecuba

2016-06-03, 07:58 PM

This is what I believe: There should not be a separate caste of NPCs that are different-from/better-than any other NPC.

I think we have very different definitions of a DMPC. To me, a DMPC is a character that is run by the DM and participates in the campaign in more or less the same manner as the PCs: the participate in combat, they level up, they get a share of XP and loot.

Obviously excepted from this are other specialized characters run by the DM at some tables (ex. - I know some tables have the DM run cohorts, since they are NPCs).

Todd the DMPC can't serve that role. He can't be abandoned or betrayed.

Why not? If the party gets him arrested/detained/killed/what-have-you, why doesn't it stick?

This doesn't seem fundamentally different to me than offing any other party member: something that probably needs to be discussed our of character first top make sure every one is on the same page, but a great way to shape the narrative of used purposefully.

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-03, 08:41 PM

To me, a DMPC is a character that is run by the DM and participates in the campaign in more or less the same manner as the PCs: the participate in combat, they level up, they get a share of XP and loot.
Same. Though my group never gives the DMPC any loot.

Why not? If the party gets him arrested/detained/killed/what-have-you, why doesn't it stick?

This doesn't seem fundamentally different to me than offing any other party member: something that probably needs to be discussed our of character first top make sure every one is on the same page, but a great way to shape the narrative of used purposefully.
I think there's an unspoken rule that you shouldn't abandon, murder, or betray other party members. Or you should at least try to avoid it.

That seems like a reasonable way to handle it, though.

Yahzi

2016-06-03, 10:15 PM

Does anyone have advice on how much is too much (or too little) when it comes to DMPCs?
Any amount is too much.

There is no reason to ever use a DMPC. You can have all manner of NPCs; they can boss the party around, upstage them, steal from them, lie to them, and even try to kill them. They can also befriend them, give them advice and treasure, follow them around, back them in a fight, or ask the PCs to back them up.

But there is no reason to ever have a DMPC. It violates the fundamental contract between player and referee.

Shackel

2016-06-03, 10:27 PM

Finally back in the topic to note that I think some of the totality and absolutes are getting a little absurd, to the point where even the definition of DMPC is drenched in bias. The definition is on the tin: a Dungeon Master's Player Character. That's it. The problem is that every issue a PC can have gets a lot bigger when you're the DM: metagaming, railroading, basically breaking the AngryGM meta because the "player" in this situation has a lot more power and knowledge.

Everything else is a problem with the DM as a player themselves, hence "when you can separate the DM from the PC". If the DMPC is coincidentally avoiding traps and dangerous enemies, that's not because it's a DMPC, it's just metagaming. If they're rolling over everything as if it were suspiciously built for them(not them being a higher level, just rolling over things), that's powergaming. Demanding the other PCs go with you on the plot is no different than a PC demanding everyone go with them on their super personal quest on the other side of the world from the adventure.

If you and your players know that you can avoid the admittedly stronger temptations, you can run a DMPC easily. But I think it's just downright silly to think that a DMPC must do all these things because "it's a DMPC", rather than calling it for what it just is: the DM, as a player, metagming/powergaming/"hijacking" the plot.

Maybe it's just because my group is able to handle it on multiple occasions.

Larrx

2016-06-04, 05:11 AM

I don't know. It's an emotion, so it's hard to define.

I become emotionally invested in my PCs. I think most people do. I mean, it's hard to describe what emotional investment is, but it definitely exists.

It does. A DM is a writer, s/he creates things (unless you only run modules I guess). There is a reason that http://www.writingforward.com/storytelling/writing-tips-kill-your-darlings is advice that people get. Emotional attachment is dangerous. It limits and weakens the story.

Pretty much like anything else in the game - when it doesn't detract from anyone's fun.

Is that our litmus test? Because I think that something that is not bad, but prevents you from achieving greatness is just as much of a problem.

I think we have very different definitions of a DMPC. To me, a DMPC is a character that is run by the DM and participates in the campaign in more or less the same manner as the PCs: the participate in combat, they level up, they get a share of XP and loot.

Obviously excepted from this are other specialized characters run by the DM at some tables (ex. - I know some tables have the DM run cohorts, since they are NPCs).

Why not? If the party gets him arrested/detained/killed/what-have-you, why doesn't it stick?

This doesn't seem fundamentally different to me than offing any other party member: something that probably needs to be discussed our of character first top make sure every one is on the same page, but a great way to shape the narrative of used purposefully.

Why does it need to be a DMPC? If the players need to have an out-of-character round robin with the game-master to decide if it's okay to interact with (what should be) an NPC . . . that seems a little messed up to me. NPCs should be game elements that the players interact with however they think their character would. Because that's roleplaying.

Same. Though my group never gives the DMPC any loot.

I think there's an unspoken rule that you shouldn't abandon, murder, or betray other party members. Or you should at least try to avoid it.

That seems like a reasonable way to handle it, though.

Thanks.

Any amount is too much.

There is no reason to ever use a DMPC. You can have all manner of NPCs; they can boss the party around, upstage them, steal from them, lie to them, and even try to kill them. They can also befriend them, give them advice and treasure, follow them around, back them in a fight, or ask the PCs to back them up.

But there is no reason to ever have a DMPC. It violates the fundamental contract between player and referee.

Exactly.

Finally back in the topic to note that I think some of the totality and absolutes are getting a little absurd, to the point where even the definition of DMPC is drenched in bias. The definition is on the tin: a Dungeon Master's Player Character. That's it. The problem is that every issue a PC can have gets a lot bigger when you're the DM: metagaming, railroading, basically breaking the AngryGM meta because the "player" in this situation has a lot more power and knowledge.

Everything else is a problem with the DM as a player themselves, hence "when you can separate the DM from the PC". If the DMPC is coincidentally avoiding traps and dangerous enemies, that's not because it's a DMPC, it's just metagaming. If they're rolling over everything as if it were suspiciously built for them(not them being a higher level, just rolling over things), that's powergaming. Demanding the other PCs go with you on the plot is no different than a PC demanding everyone go with them on their super personal quest on the other side of the world from the adventure.

If you and your players know that you can avoid the admittedly stronger temptations, you can run a DMPC easily. But I think it's just downright silly to think that a DMPC must do all these things because "it's a DMPC", rather than calling it for what it just is: the DM, as a player, metagming/powergaming/"hijacking" the plot.

Maybe it's just because my group is able to handle it on multiple occasions.

I don't think it's fair to claim bias with regard to the definition (assuming you were talking to me). 'A DMPC is different than an NPC' is the only hill I'm willing to die on. It's hard to read bias there.

Any more specific definition has been in response to others in the thread. I'm trying to explain, piece by piece, that any distinction between the two is a dysfunction.

Sometimes my car breaks down and I've had to walk to work. I've handled it fine on multiple occasions. That doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have driven.

A lot of people have said that DMPCs didn't cause the game to explode, and that's great. No one has argued that they make a game better. (Some have said it, but no one has presented an argument at to why)

Quertus

2016-06-04, 07:08 AM

A lot of people have said that DMPCs didn't cause the game to explode, and that's great. No one has argued that they make a game better. (Some have said it, but no one has presented an argument at to why)

To explicitly state that which was implicit in an earlier post: when you have a group with a rotating DM, having the DM keep their character when it is their turn to run things allows the game to maintain continuity without straining credulity.

Draco_Lord

2016-06-04, 07:34 AM

Just to add in some more anecdotes to this argument. My group has a DMPC at the moment, we have a new DM and he said he wants to continue being able to RP and interact with the group as a member, since he enjoys the roleplay banter. This is his first time DMing, so he is just learning the ropes. And honestly it works out pretty fine, much like what I find when I have an NPC that is recurring, it feels like he gets distracted by DMing and kind of forgets he has a character until we are doing something relevant or just goofing around. Heck, he is playing a paladin (we are meant to be good people, so the whole code thing is not bad, we all agreed to try and not be crazy murders) and a tanking one at that, so we kind of use him for that. We think there is an ambush? Paladin goes forward. We need someone to walk into the dungeon and try to pull the remaining enemies into our trap? Paladin. So it ends up working out, though I think that is because when the paladin shines at what he does he is tanking or healing, something the rest of the party enjoys just as much.

Hecuba

2016-06-04, 09:55 AM

Why does it need to be a DMPC? If the players need to have an out-of-character round robin with the game-master to decide if it's okay to interact with (what should be) an NPC . . . that seems a little messed up to me. NPCs should be game elements that the players interact with however they think their character would. Because that's roleplaying.
I generally expect players to do that before they kill major NPCs or other party members too. It's just polite, since it's the kind of thing that can -for example- end a secession early because the prepared encounters are no longer applicable.

Such a discussion should not generally be about the characters in question. Characters die, and you re-roll them.

The discussion is about what the players want:
-Would the session have to end early to deal with a lack of prepared material? Everyone fine with that? What if we delay until the end of the session?
-If there DMPC is, say, an ambassador and the party is part of his retinue then betraying him might place the party on the run. It's everyone fine with that?
-If this causes a permanent split in the party, some of the PCs might have to be retired or split into a different campaign. Does everyone have a spare PC ready to go?

(Some have said it, but no one has presented an argument at to why)

It provides a way to rotate DM duties within a single campaign while keeping the PC in play. This meshes well with collaborative world building situations at the table, since it allows everyone to maintain agency for there worked they helped design.

The alternatives to this tend to be either having the character disappear for a session (which is narratively weird and can be a problem if the party tactics rely on them) or handing control to another player (which works in some cases, but not all).

It provides a way to marry different stories together.
If I was to run the Order of the Stick and (a presumably larger) Team Evil in parallel campaigns at the same table, for example, I would probably expect Xykon to be run completely by the DM. This would both shielding of the main villain's motivations from the parallel campaign and a safety valve to manage the complexities of running parallel campaigns.

I would still expect, however, for him to be part of Team Evil's party and to act as such. Thus a DMPC instead of a NPC.

jjcrpntr

2016-06-04, 11:04 AM

As a DM I don't think my players mind DMPC's as long as they are used right.

It's not uncommon for me to have a NPC following the party around. In general my rule is that the NPC is in the background unless they ask for it's opinion. During a fight the NPC is off fighting his/her own opponents unless the party is in dire need (for example first session I threw them into a difficult fight and had a NPC step in to help, this was to show that the woman was a strong fighter and establish a respect/friendship between her and the players).

On the rare weeks where only 2 players are able to play the NPC will help in fights.

As for a DMPC while I usually have NPC's around only once has there been an actual DMPC and she was there more for story reasons. The players rescued a guy and he asked them to take his daughter with them as he felt she'd be safer with the pc's. She followed them around, helped them, grew and learned from them. Then come to find out she was actually the ultimate weapon and had been using them to gather powerful artifacts so that she could unseat a god emperor. But while she was with the party she was basically a DMPC.

I made a point to never have her make decisions for the party. She'd give her opinion on what to do if they asked her but usually she just went with the majority unless they went against her values, which had been clearly established to the party. DMPC's can be done if you're careful with it.

My thing is that I'm ALWAYS the dm. I enjoy it, not sure how good I am at it but I enjoy it. But I also enjoy playing and I really like making characters. Many of them become NPC's in the game but occasionally I want to play so I'll stick one with the party and play him/her a bit.

Larrx

2016-06-04, 11:37 AM

To explicitly state that which was implicit in an earlier post: when you have a group with a rotating DM, having the DM keep their character when it is their turn to run things allows the game to maintain continuity without straining credulity.

This is right. If you have a rotating DM situation, then an, also rotating, DMPC can be a necessary evil. Use them here. But as a general rule they do more harm than good.

I generally expect players to do that before they kill major NPCs or other party members too. It's just polite, since it's the kind of thing that can -for example- end a secession early because the prepared encounters are no longer applicable.

Such a discussion should not generally be about the characters in question. Characters die, and you re-roll them.

The discussion is about what the players want:
-Would the session have to end early to deal with a lack of prepared material? Everyone fine with that? What if we delay until the end of the session?
-If there DMPC is, say, an ambassador and the party is part of his retinue then betraying him might place the party on the run. It's everyone fine with that?
-If this causes a permanent split in the party, some of the PCs might have to be retired or split into a different campaign. Does everyone have a spare PC ready to go?

It provides a way to rotate DM duties within a single campaign while keeping the PC in play. This meshes well with collaborative world building situations at the table, since it allows everyone to maintain agency for there worked they helped design.

The alternatives to this tend to be either having the character disappear for a session (which is narratively weird and can be a problem if the party tactics rely on them) or handing control to another player (which works in some cases, but not all).

It provides a way to marry different stories together.
If I was to run the Order of the Stick and (a presumably larger) Team Evil in parallel campaigns at the same table, for example, I would probably expect Xykon to be run completely by the DM. This would both shielding of the main villain's motivations from the parallel campaign and a safety valve to manage the complexities of running parallel campaigns.

I would still expect, however, for him to be part of Team Evil's party and to act as such. Thus a DMPC instead of a NPC.

As above, in a rotating situation a DMPC can become inevitable (there are ways around it, but they don't work for every game). In parallel campaigns, I would argue that it isn't required. Xykon could be an NPC easily, and it would free up more options for everybody. After all, one might expect that Redcloak's player would try to assassinate or betray his bony 'friend' at some point. He should be allowed to if he likes without seeking permission from the DM first.

As far as the out of game consensus before taking extreme action goes, that's not a terrible way to run a game. It's not how my games go. I let my players act however they see fit. There are sometimes consequences. Sometimes the whole direction of the campaign can change. I'm good at improvising, so the session never ends early regardless of the mess the players might make. I've had important, meant to be recurring, BBEGs die in the first round the players ever saw them. I adapt and adjust. The game goes on.

I've played with a new DM. I didn't want to go into a cave, because I had other, more pressing, goals. The only thing he had prepared was the cave adventure though. In a situation like that it's just polite to use the consensus thing, but in a perfect world you shouldn't have to take or refrain from certain actions simply because the DM can't handle surprises.

Game changing actions that don't involve the DM should be resolved in character imo, but I get the benefit of out-of-game warnings and disscusion. I'm sure it works for some groups. It's a fine way to play if players want that safety net.

And I guess I do it to. I do say "are you sure?" sometimes. which I think is shorthand for what you're describing.

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-04, 12:22 PM

It does. A DM is a writer, s/he creates things (unless you only run modules I guess). There is a reason that http://www.writingforward.com/storytelling/writing-tips-kill-your-darlings is advice that people get. Emotional attachment is dangerous. It limits and weakens the story.

I... sort of agree, sort of disagree.

Emotional attachment can limit the story, yeah. We've all heard the horror stories about DMs who get way too attached to their characters and refuse to let anything bad happen to them.

But not everyone works like that. I'm a storyteller at heart. I don't mind if my favorite character is shot, tortured, or murdered as long as the story is good. The last time I took over as DM, I had my player character violently murdered by the villain. The party was too low-level to save her. They really hate that particular villain now.

And that's why I had my rogue captured by the villain and tortured. I like him, but that doesn't mean he gets plot armor. I kind of like tormenting my favorite characters. I'm a sadist at heart, I guess.

I like that article you linked to. Yeah, being a good writer means you must sometimes kill your darlings. But the thing is: that doesn't mean attachment is a bad thing. A good writer isn't unattached... they're attached, they're just willing to kill their darlings anyway. They're willing to do what's best for the story. And that's what a good DM does.

And that's why my last PC is rotting in a grave. :smallsmile:

Larrx

2016-06-04, 12:59 PM

I... sort of agree, sort of disagree.

Emotional attachment can limit the story, yeah. We've all heard the horror stories about DMs who get way too attached to their characters and refuse to let anything bad happen to them.

But not everyone works like that. I'm a storyteller at heart. I don't mind if my favorite character is shot, tortured, or murdered as long as the story is good. The last time I took over as DM, I had my player character violently murdered by the villain. The party was too low-level to save her. They really hate that particular villain now.

And that's why I had my rogue captured by the villain and tortured. I like him, but that doesn't mean he gets plot armor. I kind of like tormenting my favorite characters. I'm a sadist at heart, I guess.

I like that article you linked to. Yeah, being a good writer means you must sometimes kill your darlings. But the thing is: that doesn't mean attachment is a bad thing. A good writer isn't unattached... they're attached, they're just willing to kill their darlings anyway. They're willing to do what's best for the story. And that's what a good DM does.

And that's why my last PC is rotting in a grave. :smallsmile:

I think we agree more than we disagree :smallsmile:

I have absolutely no problem with what you described above.

Darkweave31

2016-06-04, 01:04 PM

I've used one as a way to successfully engage a shy player that was having a lot of difficulty getting involved in roleplay. I have unsuccessfully used one as a way to railroad my players into following my story. Essentially a "DMPC" is ok when it's to further the stories of your players. Of course at that point I think it's just another NPC. Never use a DMPC for your own ego. Especially if it's outshining the other players and stealing the spotlight from them.

Remember, nobody wants to sit around a table and watch you monsterbate

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-04, 01:29 PM

I think we agree more than we disagree :smallsmile:

I have absolutely no problem with what you described above.
I figured. :smallbiggrin:

A "DMPC" is ok when it's to further the stories of your players.
Yeah. This is pretty on-the-nose.

Fun is good. Unfun is bad. As DM, your goal is to nurture a fun environment.

digiman619

2016-06-04, 02:21 PM

And that's why I had my rogue captured by the villain and tortured. I like him, but that doesn't mean he gets plot armor. I kind of like tormenting my favorite characters. I'm a sadist at heart, I guess.

Ah, the "Dresden Files" technique...

Hecuba

2016-06-04, 04:00 PM

As above, in a rotating situation a DMPC can become inevitable (there are ways around it, but they don't work for every game). In parallel campaigns, I would argue that it isn't required. Xykon could be an NPC easily, and it would free up more options for everybody.
I think we're defining DMPC differently. If a character is:
-not a cohort or similar
-part of the party
-run by the DM
them I would call them a DMPC. I would expect Xykon to fit that for a Team Evil party.

After all, one might expect that Redcloak's player would try to assassinate or betray his bony 'friend' at some point. He should be allowed to if he likes without seeking permission from the DM first.

I'm not suggesting that they should need permission, per se. As point of fact, I don't think you should need permission to kill other PCs, much less the DM's PC.

But some actions have consequences for the table as well as the plot. The goal is not to dissuade player decisions: it's to keep the game rolling. It's not "your character can't do that."

It's "can you kill him an hour from now instead? It would require a couple follow-up encounters I don't have stated" or the Paladin's player saying "My character probably wouldn't be OK running from the law -- they would a surrender & leave the party, and I don't have a spare character rolled. Can we delay this?"

killem2

2016-06-04, 04:49 PM

I'm still so surprised by you folks who think a DM can' t just have a player character. It's not a cohort, it's not an npc. It is a pure bred character just like the ones you are DMing. /smh

Chester

2016-06-05, 09:37 AM

To explicitly state that which was implicit in an earlier post: when you have a group with a rotating DM, having the DM keep their character when it is their turn to run things allows the game to maintain continuity without straining credulity.

Yes.

My group does this. Sometimes, the DM will find a way to remove his PC. Some of us relinquish control of our PC to another player. For instance, two of us created completely symbiotic characters, so when one of us DMs, the other takes over the role. It works for the most part.

Being the party tank, when I DM, I understand that my PC is a problem primary target in an encounter, and I DM accordingly. I just allow the other players to make combat decisions without my input or suggestions. Is it perfect? No. But it beats DMing exclusively.

Honest Tiefling

2016-06-05, 02:12 PM

I'm still so surprised by you folks who think a DM can' t just have a player character. It's not a cohort, it's not an npc. It is a pure bred character just like the ones you are DMing. /smh

When there's six or more players, it can get a little much. If there were less then three, I wouldn't have an issue with it. If there's less then two, I might even suggest it.

Mystral

2016-06-05, 05:35 PM

Quertus

2016-06-05, 06:59 PM

When there's six or more players, it can get a little much. If there were less then three, I wouldn't have an issue with it. If there's less then two, I might even suggest it.

kids these days and their small parties. Back in my day, they had to start back parties to keep the party from spreading.

Up to 15 players, up to 3 characters each. Did we have dmpcs? Yes. Were they terrible? Often, but not because of the party size.

Jay R

2016-06-05, 09:31 PM

Quertus

2016-06-06, 07:25 AM

Hecuba

2016-06-06, 08:32 AM

An NPC, whether roaming with the party or not, is a character that the DM controls but has no excessive interest in.

A DMPC is a PC with the unfair advantage that the player never misunderstands the DM's intent, and the DM never misunderstands the player's intent.

If you can consider the DMPC a mere NPC, then it's fine to have that character in the party.

But if the DM needs to call that character a PC, then the problems will come up - far more often than the DM will ever hear about.

So you're defining it such that a character becomes a DMPC when the DM fails to exercise the appropriate level of dispassion toward the PC to properly DM?

For my part, I would just call that bad DMing, regardless of whether the DM is playing the PC in question.

It doesn't seem like the required dispassion should be any less important for the other parts of the DM role - I'm far more invested in my villains and world building elements than occasional PC while DMing, but I don't allow myself to involve my emotions when running those element. I also don't allow myself to let my dislike of some of the setting elements designed by other players (*cough*cough*SarahIsAWeeaboo*cough*cough*) to play into things when DMing parts of those campaigns.

Being able to continue to DM fairly while everything you built turns to ash is part of the DM's job. If you can't do that for a single PC, how are you going to do it when the entire campaign/world/story goes up in smoke?

Jay R

2016-06-07, 07:04 AM

So you're defining it such that a character becomes a DMPC when the DM fails to exercise the appropriate level of dispassion toward the PC to properly DM?

For my part, I would just call that bad DMing, regardless of whether the DM is playing the PC in question.

That's backwards, actually. I'm saying that my PC is a character I care about more than any other character in the game. That's what a PC is supposed to be.

If the DM doesn't feel that passionately about her PC, then that's bad playing.

But in the cases I've seen, the DM does care about the DMPC more than any other character in the game. That's good playing, but yes, it's bad DMing.

It doesn't seem like the required dispassion should be any less important for the other parts of the DM role - I'm far more invested in my villains and world building elements than occasional PC while DMing, but I don't allow myself to involve my emotions when running those element. I also don't allow myself to let my dislike of some of the setting elements designed by other players (*cough*cough*SarahIsAWeeaboo*cough*cough*) to play into things when DMing parts of those campaigns.

Agreed. But that level of dispassion is completely wrong for a PC. A player is supposed to be completely invested in the PC, and working with all his knowledge, tools, and creativity for the benefit of the PC's situation.

If the DM is doing that for a single character, you are correct, that's bad DMing. And if she isn't, then it's an NPC, not a DMPC.

As soon as the DM calls a single character a DMPC, she has declared that, to some extent, she will not treat that character dispassionately. She has just treated the character passionately, by identifying with it.

Being able to continue to DM fairly while everything you built turns to ash is part of the DM's job. If you can't do that for a single PC, how are you going to do it when the entire campaign/world/story goes up in smoke?

A player is somebody who doesn't know the world. He doesn't know what's behind the next door; he doesn't know how many monsters are coming; he doesn't know which item is cursed. He uses his PC as a tool to explore the universe. That's what it means to play the game - using your PC to learn about the universe. A player who has looked at the DM's notes isn't using the PC to learn about the universe. He is interacting with a universe he already knows about. That's not the same thing as playing a real PC.

The DM has looked at the DM's notes. She knows what's behind the door, how many monsters are coming, and which item is cursed. This is not the same situation that players are in.

The DM does not know the PC's player's intent - only the exact words used. The DM does know the DMPC's player's intent.

A PC's player does not know that the chest is trapped. The DMPC's player does know that it's trapped.

A PC's player doesn't know there's a second dragon swooping in from behind. A DMPC's player knows exactly what round the second dragon will attack.

A PC's player is going through a series of surprises, revelations, and learning new information. That's the experience of playing the game. The DMPC's player cannot, under any circumstances, go through this experience.

I'm not saying that the DM will consciously cheat in favor of her DMPC. I'm saying that the situation is already inherently different and unfair, like any referee who's also playing the game. I won't play football with the referee as one of the players, and for the same reasons, I won't play D&D with the DM as one of the players.

martixy

2016-06-07, 02:39 PM

I feel like so many people bring their own preconceptions of what DMPC is or should be to this thread.

And the answer is exceptionally simple and contained quite neatly in the acronym itself.
A DMPC is a PC. No qualifications.

Jay.
I won't go to a football tournament where the referee is one of the players.
I will play in a football match where the referee is one of my friends even if he happens to be on the other team.

I do see your point, but Hecuba is right. A DMPC highly unlikely to be the greatest problem in your campaign, just a symptom of a much larger issue.

There's also the fact that different players play the game for different reasons.

Obviously DM knowledge will influence the player. A good DM will minimize that influence.
After that it only matters if you see the game as a competition. Not all players do.

Jay R

2016-06-07, 08:11 PM

I feel like so many people bring their own preconceptions of what DMPC is or should be to this thread.

Preconceptions? Not at all. I had no problem with them until I saw them in action. And I repeat what I said in my first post in this thread:

But if the DM needs to call that character a PC, then the problems will come up - far more often than the DM will ever hear about.

And the answer is exceptionally simple and contained quite neatly in the acronym itself.
A DMPC is a PC. No qualifications.

The only problem with this statement is that it is obviously untrue. A DMPC is a PC who is run by the DM. That is in fact a qualification, and claiming it isn't serves no purpose.

Jay.
I won't go to a football tournament where the referee is one of the players.
I will play in a football match where the referee is one of my friends even if he happens to be on the other team.

I do see your point, but Hecuba is right. A DMPC highly unlikely to be the greatest problem in your campaign, just a symptom of a much larger issue.

I have never seen this. But I have seen the DMPC be a problem. Every time. Even my DMPC. I will not have one again. I will not play with one again.

There's also the fact that different players play the game for different reasons.

Obviously DM knowledge will influence the player. A good DM will minimize that influence.
After that it only matters if you see the game as a competition. Not all players do.

In fact, I don't see it as competition, which is why your statement about a friend on the other team is completely off-topic.

A DMPC is a PC whose player is not playing in the sense that I am playing. He is not using his character as a tool to learn about the world (which he invented), in a long series of surprises and unexpected happenings (which he planned).

Shackel

2016-06-08, 12:02 AM

I don't think it's fair to claim bias with regard to the definition (assuming you were talking to me). 'A DMPC is different than an NPC' is the only hill I'm willing to die on. It's hard to read bias there.

Any more specific definition has been in response to others in the thread. I'm trying to explain, piece by piece, that any distinction between the two is a dysfunction.

Sometimes my car breaks down and I've had to walk to work. I've handled it fine on multiple occasions. That doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have driven.

A lot of people have said that DMPCs didn't cause the game to explode, and that's great. No one has argued that they make a game better. (Some have said it, but no one has presented an argument at to why)

The bias I was referring to was whenever a DMPC's difference from an NPC is all but described as "an NPC but bad". An NPC but overbearing. An NPC, but better than the PCs. When the DMPC is described in a manner that's clearly to make it sound like it's something that should never exist.

In a way I don't argue that they make a game better. Rather, I argue against this adamant opinion that they always make it worse and must be avoided at almost all costs. But, sure, if I had to hazard a guess at why that can improve a game: some DMs do like to play in the world they've created, it gives the DM another reason to be invested in the game, gives an extra player, gives an extra role, etc. On the "gray" side of things, it does give a good DM a better tool to help the game, players or other characters along, but that can be abused just as easily.

Quertus

2016-06-08, 09:36 AM

A player is somebody who doesn't know the world. He doesn't know what's behind the next door; he doesn't know how many monsters are coming; he doesn't know which item is cursed. He uses his PC as a tool to explore the universe. That's what it means to play the game - using your PC to learn about the universe. A player who has looked at the DM's notes isn't using the PC to learn about the universe. He is interacting with a universe he already knows about. That's not the same thing as playing a real PC.

The DM has looked at the DM's notes. She knows what's behind the door, how many monsters are coming, and which item is cursed. This is not the same situation that players are in.

The DM does not know the PC's player's intent - only the exact words used. The DM does know the DMPC's player's intent.

A PC's player does not know that the chest is trapped. The DMPC's player does know that it's trapped.

A PC's player doesn't know there's a second dragon swooping in from behind. A DMPC's player knows exactly what round the second dragon will attack.

A PC's player is going through a series of surprises, revelations, and learning new information. That's the experience of playing the game. The DMPC's player cannot, under any circumstances, go through this experience.

Modules for the win! First read through the module, be asking yourself, WWDMPCD?

Story time: this one time, a friend had agreed to run a module. Then real life happened. We players had been excited about the module, so I agreed to run the module myself. First read through was me getting to explore the module as my character. Come game time, boy was the party surprised when my dmpc ticked off the quest giver who, with a wave of his hand, made my character vanish (just teleported him away, thankfully)! Because, well, it's what my character would have done in that situation, and it was spelled out in the module how the quest giver would respond.

So exploration of the world can happen with a dmpc if you are running a module - it just happens before the game. During the game, you just act out the dmpc (like you would any other npc), although you can still get surprises from the dice, and from the players' reactions.

And I'll again add that the disparity in comprehension of intentions is a point in favor of the dmpc (or telepathic DMs, I suppose).

EDIT: and people who can't roleplay the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge have got bigger issues that aren't limited to the many issues with a dmpc. If differentiating what a character knows from what the player/DM knows is a real issue... Maybe it's time to consider a new hobby if that's the case. One that doesn't involve role-playing.

Hecuba

2016-06-08, 10:20 AM

Obviously DM knowledge will influence the player.

I don't see that as obvious at all. It's no different than playing chess against yourself: you just have to compartmentalize the knowledge.

It would be the same skill-set needed to, for example, role-play Napoleon in the lead-up to Waterloo. The player knows that he will loose, but the character should absolutely not be influenced by that knowledge.

Edit: Actually chess has no information asymmetry, at least in theory. A better option would be, perhaps, playing Hearts or Cribbage or some other card game against yourself - something I actually find much easier.

A DMPC is a PC whose player is not playing in the sense that I am playing. He is not using his character as a tool to learn about the world (which he invented), in a long series of surprises and unexpected happenings (which he planned).

Not every world is designed by the DM - indeed, I find it most word building most rewarding when many people take part. Moreover, you could be in a well designed world, or even a module.

Consider the most extreme case - running a module that has been played through before at the table. Would you be fine with the DM having a PC then? If not, what advantage do you see for the DM's PC that the PCs of the other players lack?

Larrx

2016-06-08, 01:58 PM

The bias I was referring to was whenever a DMPC's difference from an NPC is all but described as "an NPC but bad". An NPC but overbearing. An NPC, but better than the PCs. When the DMPC is described in a manner that's clearly to make it sound like it's something that should never exist.

In a way I don't argue that they make a game better. Rather, I argue against this adamant opinion that they always make it worse and must be avoided at almost all costs. But, sure, if I had to hazard a guess at why that can improve a game: some DMs do like to play in the world they've created, it gives the DM another reason to be invested in the game, gives an extra player, gives an extra role, etc. On the "gray" side of things, it does give a good DM a better tool to help the game, players or other characters along, but that can be abused just as easily.

Let's run through some of the common responses to a DMPC, many of which we've seen in this very thread.

"A DMPC is okay if they dont steal the player's thunder during combat. Have them heal or buff" : Okay, cool I guess. The speaker recognizes that a DMPC could injure the fun of a tactical encounter. Of course, the contribution they do provide could come from a magic item. Or you could just re-tune the encounters to make them unnecessary. There must be another reason the DMPC is there.

"A DMPC is fine as long as they don't take control of the story. My DMPC's stay silent when decisions need to be made" : What a lost opportunity! An NPC could argue and pressure and contribute and make the story deeper.

Even the people that defend DMPC's often include the caveat that they are at best neutral. If something is at best neutral, and often very bad, why would you ever recommend to a stranger that they utilize them? This is what I'm trying to do by the way. I'm arguing with commenters in this thread so that the op, or anyone who googles this, can see both sides.

The only positive argument I've seen is "The DM wants to play in the world they created." And this . . . just isn't possible. I've explained why upthread (and so has Jay R! thanks for the support), but even in the most reductive situation (I'm running a board game, there is no story at all, just fights), this doesn't work. It falls apart the second there is a door for enemies to be behind.

But that's not the real point is it? The point is that running a game is art. It is. It has things in common with improvisational acting, and film, and literature, and television. And it can be great. And injecting yourself and your ego into a small piece of your work is an amateur mistake. A creator has to be looking at the big picture. The language is different. Writers call it a 'Mary Sue,' or they advise you to 'kill your darlings.' But it's the same principle.

So, no, I do not believe that DMPC's, always and inherently, make a game worse. I do think that they are fraught with the potential for amateur mistakes, and new DM's should avoid them.

I also believe that they are obstacles to creating your best work. If you want to be great, you need to let go of the DMPC label and just run NPCs.

Larrx

2016-06-08, 02:18 PM

Barstro

2016-06-08, 02:22 PM

Much of what you say looks great on paper, but never realizes that potential in real life and I respond to only a few issues.

1) ...There must be another reason the DMPC is there.

2)...What a lost opportunity! An NPC could argue and pressure and contribute and make the story deeper.

3)... I do think that they are fraught with the potential for amateur mistakes, and new DM's should avoid them.

4)...I also believe that they are obstacles to creating your best work. If you want to be great, you need to let go of the DMPC label and just run NPCs.

1) I think that having a DMPC can have more benefits than what you cautioned against. But, I'd say that 95% of the time your statement would be correct.

2) Here I disagree with you, if I understand you correctly. I think that a DM trying to force characters to make a certain decision can be too detrimental. But it does change if it's a DMPC (by whatever definition) or an NPC. I would want a DMPC to take a very limited role in decision making, but have no problem with an NPC being a lobbyist. It's a gray area, though.
EDIT; apparently I did misunderstand. To be more correct, I understood half the time, but chose the incorrect "understanding" when I decided to type. My bad.

3) I agree that new DMs are less likely to be able to distance their characters from what the DM knows. But I can still see limited cases where even a new DM might need to take over a PC. Again, I think I'm only disagreeing with the blanket statement that they should always be avoided, but agree in general.

4) I certainly agree. But it might be a bit too hard to do that at all times. Even the best of DMs are not the best at everything.

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-08, 02:59 PM

If there is a situation, and you think, "what would this NPC (Bob) do," then congratulations, you're running a cool NPC, and you have to do this with every NPC in your world. Good skill to have.

Er... okay.

But I do that with literally all of my characters. Even when I'm a player and I'm playing a regular PC. I develop a personality for them and then make decisions based on their in-game knowledge.

A lot of people do it that way. Don't they?

Larrx

2016-06-08, 03:07 PM

Much of what you say looks great on paper, but never realizes that potential in real life and I respond to only a few issues.

2) Here I disagree with you, if I understand you correctly. I think that a DM trying to force characters to make a certain decision can be too detrimental. But it does change if it's a DMPC (by whatever definition) or an NPC. I would want a DMPC to take a very limited role in decision making, but have no problem with an NPC being a lobbyist. It's a gray area, though.

I don't think you do understand me correctly (my fault, my statement was a little muddy taken out of context and I shouldn't expect people to have studied this five page thread. Sorry:smallfrown:).

What I meant (spoken in the generalities you dislike only for brevity, promise) was this:

A DMPC mustn't force the players to make certain choices. If DMPC Sara, Archimandrite of the church of self-righteous fury, recommends that the party press forward to cleanse the orc capital, then the players are kind of stuck. Sara the DMPC has to stay with the party, so the story only makes sense if they agree with her. Also, she's a proxy for the DM's voice. Out of game, the players might think that the orc capital is the only thing the DM has ready. Maybe they go just to be polite. Pretty much no one likes this kind of restriction, so hopefully the DM won't even bring her desires to the party's attention.

An NPC, because it is just one of many game elements can press the players all she wants. Once she makes her case (raze the orc capital), the players will have to make a choice. Do they go along with her plan, despite its extremity? Do they refuse and perhaps draw the wrath of her sect? Do they fight her? Profess romantic love? Tie her up and attempt to de-condition her? Any choice is acceptable because she's an NPC, and the DM has no special interest in her. The DM likes the fun dilemma she represents. He likes the texture she adds to the story. He thinks of her as a character, and not his character, so she's much more useful as a storytelling tool.

In response to your overall misgivings (If I understand you correctly), I do understand that people aren't perfect. There might be times when a DM introduces a DMPC because that's the only thing s/he can think of. Hopefully it goes well. I still would never recommend the practice.

Just because something might be a good response to emergency or inexperience doesn't mean it's good.

Jay R

2016-06-08, 03:15 PM

Rather, I argue against this adamant opinion that they always make it worse and must be avoided at almost all costs

No problem. Let me correct it. My observation is that they have always made it worse in the games I've seen, and that the DM is always the last to see the problems, even when he is trying to do it perfectly, even when I was the DM with the DMPC. Therefore I will avoid a game with a DMPC at all costs.

You may play any game any way you like, and I hope that you enjoy it. But a game with a DMPC is not a unified party doing the same things together, it's a party with one member who must be played every differently from any other, because that player is playing a very different game.

If you enjoy that, play it. I don't.

But, sure, if I had to hazard a guess at why that can improve a game: some DMs do like to play in the world they've created, it gives the DM another reason to be invested in the game, gives an extra player, gives an extra role, etc. On the "gray" side of things, it does give a good DM a better tool to help the game, players or other characters along, but that can be abused just as easily.

A. I also like to play in worlds I've invented. But now I do so in solitaire play.
B. It does not give an extra player. It gives an extra person who isn't really a player. A DMPC is not doing what a PC does, as shown by all the clever tools to run one, from staying out of group decisions to running through a module early.
C. An extra role can be provided by an NPC, thus avoiding the paradox that a player is supposed to be passionate about his character, but a DM is supposed to be dispassionate about all the characters he runs.
D. I have seen it be an "extra tool to help the game" very rarely, and for very short periods, and always causing long-term problems.
E. I'm not saying that DMs are trying to abuse it. I'm saying that it is already something very different from playing a real PC, and that that fact changes the game whether the DM abuses it or not.

I don't see that as obvious at all. It's no different than playing chess against yourself: you just have to compartmentalize the knowledge.

And then never plan a three-move knight fork, or a four-move mate, wondering if your opponent will see it coming. Never make a move far away from your real plan just to distract your opponent. Top chess players routinely work through games by themselves, but nobody thinks that this is the same thing as trying to outwit the other player. It's not a real game of chess.

It would be the same skill-set needed to, for example, role-play Napoleon in the lead-up to Waterloo. The player knows that he will loose, but the character should absolutely not be influenced by that knowledge.

Then he's not role-playing as Napoleon, who was never in the situation of knowing in advance what would happen. He's pretending to role-play Napoleon.

Edit: Actually chess has no information asymmetry, at least in theory. A better option would be, perhaps, playing Hearts or Cribbage or some other card game against yourself - something I actually find much easier.

Yes, I've done that. But it is very different from really playing the game. In a real game, I'm trying to figure out what the other player knows. In solitaire Hearts, I'm trying to block out what the other player knows. It is simply not playing the same game that real opponents are.

Not every world is designed by the DM - indeed, I find it most word building most rewarding when many people take part. Moreover, you could be in a well designed world, or even a module.

True, not not pertinent to the point I was making. Yes, many people may design the world, but we are always playing in a specific situation. When a PC Rogue is picking a lock, the player doesn't know if it's trapped, or what is behind the door. When a DMPC Rogue is picking the lock, the player does know if it's trapped, and what is behind the door. Sure you can "separate player knowledge from character knowledge," but a real player is wondering what the truth is, and a DM player is not. He isn't playing the same game that real players are.

Consider the most extreme case - running a module that has been played through before at the table. Would you be fine with the DM having a PC then?

Actually, most of my objections would now apply to every PC. Playing a module means exploring it to find out what's there, and reacting to each new surprise. The DM can do whatever he likes, since I'm not playing.

If not, what advantage do you see for the DM's PC that the PCs of the other players lack?

It's not a question of an advantage. When I did it, I told the players that they would divide the treasure up, including my share, with no input from me. That seemed fair and practical. It's not an advantage for my character. But it is not playing the same game, in which a player is trying to pick good items for his character.

You aren't really playing the game with a DMPC. There are all kinds of ideas and stunts to try to simulate playing the game, from letting the other players make all group decisions, to using modules to playing somebody who doesn't voice opinions. But in all cases, you are still introducing something that is different from playing the game.

The DM has a job to do, and should be deeply focused on it. If he doesn't want to lay out a world for the players, with risks to take and mysteries to solve and hidden knowledge to slowly figure out, without a PC of his own, then he's not interested in mysteries and hidden knowledge anyway. He should step down, be a full-time player, and let somebody DM who believes in his world so much that running it is joy enough.

I will give in to this extent. If the game is simply a sequence of combats - tactical exercises with nothing hidden - then there's no need for a real DM, and the person who sets up the scenarios can certainly be one of the players. That's what the average miniatures game is. And that may be what you meant by a module everybody has played. I have no problem with

But I've actually studied game theory, and used a game theoretic approach to solve a scheduling problem for my dissertation. The game I want to play involves making decisions based on partial information, including trying to find out what the other person knows that I don't. I can simulate such play by "separating player knowledge from character knowledge", but that's simulating the game, not playing it. I don't want to simulate playing a D&D game; I want to simulate being a wizard.

Play your game your way. You neither have to agree with my point, nor get me to agree with yours. Have fun, however you play.

Larrx

2016-06-08, 03:26 PM

Er... okay.

But I do that with literally all of my characters. Even when I'm a player and I'm playing a regular PC. I develop a personality for them and then make decisions based on their in-game knowledge.

A lot of people do it that way. Don't they?

Well, yes, but despite the similar language, there is a fundamental difference between the way a PC is run and the way an NPC is run.

An NPC is one of thousands of moving parts, there for the players to cherish or discard or combat. They make decisions based on in-game knowledge so that the world makes sense. So it seems real.

A player moves his character around the world, making decisions based on in-game knowledge as well, but the player (and the DM) lives, and dies, and is invested in, the outcomes of those choices, good or bad. There isn't winning or losing in rpgs, but there are goals, and success or failure are big moments.

The difference, story-wise, is because the PC's are the protagonists. They're the people we watch, and it's their fate that concerns us.

Out-of-game-wise it's because the PCs all have a real human being behind them. This is why they're playing. DM's are allowed to have fun too, but it's a different kind of fun. They can't stray into protagonist territory lest they risk losing the 'game' part of rpgs.

Barstro

2016-06-08, 03:31 PM

An NPC is one of thousands of moving parts, there for the players to cherish or discard or combat.

No no no. Now you are describing a PC that someone other than me controls. :smallamused:

Almost forgot to make that blue. Hope I chose the correct hue.

AnimeTheCat

2016-06-08, 03:58 PM

Larrx

2016-06-08, 04:15 PM

So, I know this is going to go against the flow of the thread and if it causes an upset I'm sorry. I regularly DMPC. I love playing Characters. NPCs just aren't the same. I compartmentalize information. I write notes on my character sheet to remind me of how my character acts, and I play the role. I invest in the characters, I roll to see if I believe things, I make mistakes the character would make, I level at the same rate as the party and usually play lower tier characters simply because my friends aren't power-gamers. The thing is that I never have once felt out of place with DMPC and my players have never had a bad thing to say about them. In fact, there are times where they have to convince me (the DMPC) to come along with them because I have a completely different idea in my character's head. Its all about acting.

I will say that they have also learned that I will never use my DMPC to force them to do something. I will use regular NPCs for that. Your standard quest givers, BBEGs, Town Mayor types. There's just my 2cp worth. again, I'm sorry if this sparks controversy, but this is how I've done it. this is how I DM. and my players enjoy it.

Hey, no need to be sorry. Any controversy your post might spark is pretty on-topic for this thread. :smallsmile:

You yourself have highlighted some of the problems with DMPCs. You roll to see what your character believes, and you don't try to steer your players. You wouldn't need to censor yourself like that if you didn't realize, on some level, that there is danger and asymmetry in the very idea of a DMPC.

And think about all the stories you can't tell because of those restrictions. If you used NPCs you would have more tools. More options.

I believe you when you say your games are good and your players enjoy them, and I think that's great.

I also believe that your games could be better if you rethought how you approach the idea of characters that you control traveling with the party.

Hecuba

2016-06-08, 04:53 PM

What about bridge, where you know you can you make 4 spades if west isn't void and nearly all the skill comes from deciding what to bid? What about texas hold 'em? Your opponent holds a pair of aces and you have a pair of kings. Do you go all in?

I deliberately avoided poker as an example, since the majority of many variants is in reading the opponent. But in the case of you Texas Hold 'Em example: if I am playing against myself and I have 1 hand with KK and one hand with AA, yes I would go all in on the KK hand.

If there is a situation, and you think to yourself "what would I do," . . . there's really no way to make that work, you know too much.
First: If you are basing your decision in role-playing on what you know or would do instead of what your character knows and would do, you're no longer making decisions in character. Even setting aside the matter of having greater knowledge as the DM than standard player knowledge, it's a problem.

For example: if you are playing a low Int, low Wis character you will likely routinely have situations where you have tactical insights your character clearly should not have. There are traps that your PC should walk into, even if you the player see them coming. That may be more common for a DMPC, but (for games when role-playing is emphasized) I expect the other PCs to respect the distinction just as much.

By the same token, this would imply that you could never re-run a module without cheating-- since you know exactly as much information as the DM, your player knowledge should cover everything. Your character knowledge, however, should not.

I can simulate such play by "separating player knowledge from character knowledge", but that's simulating the game, not playing it. I don't want to simulate playing a D&D game; I want to simulate being a wizard.

This seems to get to the heart of the distinction. "Separating player knowledge from character knowledge" isn't something I see as just a DM/DMPC thing. If not a DM and I'm role playing in earnest (i.e. not a kick in the door game), then if a I (the player) recognize a tactical trap I will attempt to make an honest assessment as to whether or not my character would recognize it. If not, I will have my character walk into the trap.

I am not my character. My character probably has not read every published 1st party D&D book cover to cover. Part of what I consider integral to role-playing in most cases is respecting the fact that there is supposed to be an information asymmetry between the me, the player, and my PC.

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-08, 05:02 PM

So, I know this is going to go against the flow of the thread and if it causes an upset I'm sorry. I regularly DMPC. I love playing Characters. NPCs just aren't the same. I compartmentalize information. I write notes on my character sheet to remind me of how my character acts, and I play the role. I invest in the characters, I roll to see if I believe things, I make mistakes the character would make, I level at the same rate as the party and usually play lower tier characters simply because my friends aren't power-gamers. The thing is that I never have once felt out of place with DMPC and my players have never had a bad thing to say about them. In fact, there are times where they have to convince me (the DMPC) to come along with them because I have a completely different idea in my character's head. Its all about acting.

I will say that they have also learned that I will never use my DMPC to force them to do something. I will use regular NPCs for that. Your standard quest givers, BBEGs, Town Mayor types. There's just my 2cp worth. again, I'm sorry if this sparks controversy, but this is how I've done it. this is how I DM. and my players enjoy it.
That sounds totally fine. Kudos to you.

And think about all the stories you can't tell because of those restrictions. If you used NPCs you would have more tools. More options.

It's really clear that you have a different idea of what NPCs and DMPCs are. So maybe we should stop using those words in this argument.

So when you say "If you used NPCs, you would have more options," can you stop using that word and be more specific? If he didn't identify with this character, he would have more options? If he was willing to let his character die, he would have more options? If he was willing to let his character be wrong? If he thought more about what this character would do?

Because it's possible he already does those things. He just might not consider the character an NPC because he has a different definition than you. We don't need to rehash that.

kyoryu

2016-06-08, 05:23 PM

Jay R are smart.

I recommend never using a DMPC. Yes, some people will say that they used DMPCs in their games, and it went swimmingly. I have no doubt of that.

However.

A DMPC should add no more to the game than any other PC (or they're not really a "pc"). They take up the DM's attention. And there's all sorts of information asymmetry stuff that happens with them as well.

When they go bad, they tend to go very, very, group-destroyingly bad.

So, to me, it's like playing Russian Roulette for $10. Sure, maybe you win $10. And somebody will be happy to tell you how they won $10, or even $50. And they're certainly telling the truth.

But if it goes wrong? It goes way wrong. And the little you benefit ain't worth the risk, in my opinion. It's an unnecessary risk with minimal upside.

Troacctid

2016-06-08, 05:37 PM

Honest Tiefling

2016-06-08, 05:37 PM

When they go bad, they tend to go very, very, group-destroyingly bad.

I think there is no aspect of DnD that HASN'T lead to physical violence of some sort. I don't disagree that DMPCs shouldn't be used sparingly and very, very, carefully.

But the truth is, so many DMs want to play, but they don't get the opportunity. Which is why I would support a DMPC even more so if this were the case.

And there is no fun if there is no risk. A lot of campaigns (Horror, non-combat, etc.) are all risks, but can be extremely fun and worth trying.

dascarletm

2016-06-08, 06:25 PM

Answer to the question:

DMPCs do not exist.
Postulate 1: In a game there exists DMs and players.
Postulate 2: If you are a DM, you are not a player.
Therefore you cannot have a player character if you are a DM.:smallwink:

I've had DMs play NPCs that were part of the party, and were treated as such. I don't see how it is a problem inherently. In fact, it would annoy me if only a certain set of people in the world (those run by players) would ever join your party. Doesn't make sense.

Larrx

2016-06-08, 06:45 PM

That sounds totally fine. Kudos to you.

It's really clear that you have a different idea of what NPCs and DMPCs are. So maybe we should stop using those words in this argument.

So when you say "If you used NPCs, you would have more options," can you stop using that word and be more specific? If he didn't identify with this character, he would have more options? If he was willing to let his character die, he would have more options? If he was willing to let his character be wrong? If he thought more about what this character would do?

Because it's possible he already does those things. He just might not consider the character an NPC because he has a different definition than you. We don't need to rehash that.

? . . . a different idea from who? In my response to AnimeTheCat I used the exact definition that was provided in the original post.

1) he rolls to see what the DMPC believes.
2) he doesn't use the DMPC to steer the party

He explicitly states that he does use NPCs to steer the party, and, while he doesn't say whether or not he rolls to see what every NPC knows, I'm pretty sure (from context) that he doesn't.

So that's the difference. That he provided, and I responded to. I honestly don't see how that's unclear, but I'm always up for more friendly discussion.

You don't want to rehash, so I won't waste your time restating what I think the definition is. If you do want me too, just ask though. I don't mind.

Also, I used a lot of gendered pronouns in this post . . . if Anime is female than I'm, like, super sorry.

Jay R

2016-06-08, 07:00 PM

This seems to get to the heart of the distinction. "Separating player knowledge from character knowledge" isn't something I see as just a DM/DMPC thing. If not a DM and I'm role playing in earnest (i.e. not a kick in the door game), then if a I (the player) recognize a tactical trap I will attempt to make an honest assessment as to whether or not my character would recognize it. If not, I will have my character walk into the trap.

I am not my character. My character probably has not read every published 1st party D&D book cover to cover. Part of what I consider integral to role-playing in most cases is respecting the fact that there is supposed to be an information asymmetry between the me, the player, and my PC.

I agree with everything you said here, and none of it is germane to my point. Yes, there are times when you must play the character without your personal knowledge, especially in the trivial examples you are using - walking into a trap.

But some parts of the game are actually thinking - 100% trying to figure something out with all the tools you have. You're trying to solve the mystery, trying to understand the clue, trying to put together all the facts, trying to figure out the NPC's motive. And that's the focus of any game deeper than a series of unconnected melees.

The DMPC is never doing that. Since that's the part of role-playing I love most, and since the entire party can never play the business of trying to solve the mysteries if one of them is a DMPC, I don't like having a DMPC.

The story of Frodo is about trying to find a way into Mordor, not about fights. You're not playing Frodo if you already know the only way in is Cirith Ungol, even if you let Shelob poison you.

The story of D'Artagnan is about Parisian politics, not about fighting the Cardinal's guards. You aren't playing D'Artagnan if you know Richelieu will have Constance kidnapped, even if you don't try to stop it.

The story of Harry Potter is about learning magic, not merely fighting Voldemort. You aren't playing Harry if you already know what a horcrux is.

Separating player knowledge from character knowledge is easy on a single-fight level. But when the rest of the party is trying to work out the BBEG's defenses, and the player with the DMPC is not, then the party isn't acting like a party.

Being the DM is fun, and absorbing, and a full-time job. It's also fun to play, letting somebody else be the DM. But the DM with a DMPC isn't playing D&D; he's trying to simulate the play of D&D.

If I am ever in the game in which the current DM needs to be a player to have fun, I'll let him have be a player, and start DMing myself.

I repeat two points I made earlier:
1. If the game is simply a sequence of combats - tactical exercises with nothing hidden - then there's no need for a real DM, and the person who sets up the scenarios can certainly be one of the players. That's what the average miniatures game is.

2. Play your game your way. You neither have to agree with my point, nor get me to agree with yours. Have fun, however you play.

AnimeTheCat

2016-06-08, 07:04 PM

? . . . a different idea from who? In my response to AnimeTheCat I used the exact definition that was provided in the original post.

1) he rolls to see what the DMPC believes.
2) he doesn't use the DMPC to steer the party

He explicitly states that he does use NPCs to steer the party, and, while he doesn't say whether or not he rolls to see what every NPC knows, I'm pretty sure (from context) that he doesn't.

So that's the difference. That he provided, and I responded to. I honestly don't see how that's unclear, but I'm always up for more friendly discussion.

You don't want to rehash, so I won't waste your time restating what I think the definition is. If you do want me too, just ask though. I don't mind.

Also, I used a lot of gendered pronouns in this post . . . if Anime is female than I'm, like, super sorry.

Actually, by the contrary, I definitely DO roll to see what NPCs know. I have my PCs roll their knowledge skills to see if they know things. I use a modified sliding scale along the lines of 5 or less you are clueless, 6-10 means you have heard of it but only in myth and legend, 11-15 means you know very general knowledge (grass is green and it needs sunlight only not that simple), 16-20 means you can pick one thing you know well about the object of the check, 21-25 two things, 26-30 three things, etc. I know that isn't exactly know knowledge skills are supposed to work but I do it for everyone. It keeps people from being able to use OOG knowledge in game.

On the note of Knowledge that's one reason I LOVE playing bards as NPCs, especially tavern owners and the like. Bardic Knowledge comes in handy and the PCs know where that utility is if they don't have a bard themselves.

As far as not steering the party with a DMPC vs a NPC, any PC be it someone at the table, an NPC, or a DMPC can steer the party. What I meant was that the DMPC won't give any quests, tell someone they have to go a certain place, or take control. If the DMPC makes the knowledge check then the Players are free to either believe or disbelieve him.

The way I see everything is that I'm the DM. I play a character with the party regularly and that character doesn't change unless he/she dies. That's a DMPC to me. It seems to fit the various above stated descriptions fairly well, minus the bits about using OOG knowledge to browbeat the party. Maybe it's easy for me because I have been acting in theater all my life and I find it easy to swap between characters and put on many different faces.

Lastly, I am a male so you're all good :)

Evelyn Elliott

2016-06-08, 07:20 PM

In my response to AnimeTheCat I used the exact definition that was provided in the original post.

1) he rolls to see what the DMPC believes.
2) he doesn't use the DMPC to steer the party

He explicitly states that he does use NPCs to steer the party, and, while he doesn't say whether or not he rolls to see what every NPC knows, I'm pretty sure (from context) that he doesn't.

1) I'm pretty sure he's talking about bluff checks and sense motive checks. Don't most people roll for that stuff?
2) He said he never uses DMPCs to force the party to do something.

So Bob the DMPC/NPC can be lied to, and he doesn't force the party down a particular path. Sounds good. That's the same way I treat every character.

kyoryu

2016-06-08, 11:48 PM

I repeat two points I made earlier:
1. If the game is simply a sequence of combats - tactical exercises with nothing hidden - then there's no need for a real DM, and the person who sets up the scenarios can certainly be one of the players. That's what the average miniatures game is.

More wisdom from Jay R.

Hecuba

2016-06-08, 11:50 PM

Play your game your way. You neither have to agree with my point, nor get me to agree with yours. Have fun, however you play.

I'm not particularly invested in changing anyone's mind: changing people's opinion on an internet forum is generally only called for when you're looking for debate as an intellectual exercise (which doesn't seem suited to this thread.

But I do want to understand the views of the other people on the thread. Understanding how and why other play helps me make the tables I play at more welcoming.

So if I've given the impression my goal in the conversation has been to convince you your opinion is wrong, please rest assured that that is not the case.

You're trying to solve the mystery, trying to understand the clue, trying to put together all the facts, trying to figure out the NPC's motive.

Here's another point where it seems like our preferences diverge: these elements strike me as skill checks or similar.

If solving the mystery or discerning an NPCs motive is a function of my mental skills as a player, that puts constraints on my ability as a player to run a character that is significantly more or significantly less intelligent than I am. It also constrains my ability as a DM to run a campaign for people who are better investigators than I.

How, under that model, do you handle playing an Int 3 character? A Cha 30 one? If your character shouldn't be able to solve the mystery behind the plot even if you can? If they should instantly grasp a social sortation you would utterly flub? If you are much better at reading the bluffs of the DM than your PC should be at reading the bluffs of the recurring villain?

Or more generally, if you don't abstract elements like these, how do you avoid limiting how different your character can be from you in those elements?

The DMPC is never doing that. . I still, at a very basic level, don't get this. I think the difference might be me misunderstanding, at a very basic level, what you mean by a DMPC.

As a general rule, the only real differences between how I play an NPC when I DM and how I play a PC when I don't are:
-Deliberately having to the NPC take a back seat to ensure the PCs stays in the spotlight
-A difference in how much information I need to compartmentalize.

Truthfully, the difference in information is usually fastly minor. If the game is a packaged adventure, there is a pretty good chance I know the outcome of the plot, whether I am the DM or not. If it is a sandbox world the people at the table designed in a world building exercise, being DM doesn't give me any special knowledge of the world we all designed or how it will change as we use it

From there, the only real difference between a NPC and a DMPC is, to me, the fact that the DMPC is treated as a ongoing member of the party.

People have talked about relative emotional investment, but the truth is I tend to be invested in most NPCs I make while world building. Heck, even some I don't make. This is true whether I'm DMing or not. If the table has done enough work to start it out, someone probably have it at least a cursory backstory.

I had a session not to long ago where my PC died, as did an NPC designed by another player - a saintly old woman named Atsa. I was easy more invested in Atsa. PC = investment doesn't ring true to me.

The story of Harry Potter is about learning magic, not merely fighting Voldemort. You aren't playing Harry if you already know what a horcrux is.

It seems to me that this would mean that you would see no value in playing the same adventure over again with different characters.

One of the most interesting HP scenarios I can think of playing is Harry Potter without Harry Potter. If Harry & Neville don't survive Halloween 1981, which of their classmates saved the day when Tommy-boy pops up again in the 90s.

The end goal of the campaign would still be the horacruxes, but how you get there would change wildly because of the different characters.

Larrx

2016-06-09, 08:39 AM

Actually, by the contrary, I definitely DO roll to see what NPCs know. I have my PCs roll their knowledge skills to see if they know things. I use a modified sliding scale along the lines of 5 or less you are clueless, 6-10 means you have heard of it but only in myth and legend, 11-15 means you know very general knowledge (grass is green and it needs sunlight only not that simple), 16-20 means you can pick one thing you know well about the object of the check, 21-25 two things, 26-30 three things, etc. I know that isn't exactly know knowledge skills are supposed to work but I do it for everyone. It keeps people from being able to use OOG knowledge in game.

On the note of Knowledge that's one reason I LOVE playing bards as NPCs, especially tavern owners and the like. Bardic Knowledge comes in handy and the PCs know where that utility is if they don't have a bard themselves.

As far as not steering the party with a DMPC vs a NPC, any PC be it someone at the table, an NPC, or a DMPC can steer the party. What I meant was that the DMPC won't give any quests, tell someone they have to go a certain place, or take control. If the DMPC makes the knowledge check then the Players are free to either believe or disbelieve him.

The way I see everything is that I'm the DM. I play a character with the party regularly and that character doesn't change unless he/she dies. That's a DMPC to me. It seems to fit the various above stated descriptions fairly well, minus the bits about using OOG knowledge to browbeat the party. Maybe it's easy for me because I have been acting in theater all my life and I find it easy to swap between characters and put on many different faces.

Lastly, I am a male so you're all good :)

Thank you for taking the time to clarify that for me, and for generally being a nice sot of fellow. :smallsmile:

If you do think that a DMPC is "a character [who travels] with the party regularly and that character doesn't change unless he/she dies," then why does it need a special name? I mean, that basically describes animal companions, familiars, and cohorts. All of which are NPCs.

Now that I have a better understanding of how your games go, I don't think we actually disagree. If you write a character, and that character travels with the party, and those are your only criteria for calling it a DMPC . . . then you're doing everything right.

The majority of people that draw a distinction between NPCs and the subset of NPCs that are DMPCs treat the two things very differently (or have seen them treated very differently).

The only issue I might see (and this is probably just a case of you being reasonably concise) is that death shouldn't be the only way out. The party should be allowed, for example, to simply leave the character behind.

Larrx

2016-06-09, 08:55 AM

1) I'm pretty sure he's talking about bluff checks and sense motive checks. Don't most people roll for that stuff?
2) He said he never uses DMPCs to force the party to do something.

So Bob the DMPC/NPC can be lied to, and he doesn't force the party down a particular path. Sounds good. That's the same way I treat every character.

Yeah, you were right, and I was wrong :smallsmile:

I still think that this is kind of dodging the issue. If somebody defines the difference between a DMPC and an NPC as 'where they happen to be standing,' then no one has any problem with that. You can argue that your DMPCs don't have special privileges or restrictions. I can argue that I don't use DMPCs, I just use NPCs instead. And we're both saying the same thing.

The problem is that a lot of people do give DMPCs special privileges or restrictions. Those are the things I warn against.

I swear, I thought we were all sympatico, like, 2 pages ago. What happened? Was it me? It was me wasn't it?

Jay R

2016-06-09, 09:40 AM

Lots of good questions and thoughts. That means that this is a really long response.

tl;dr: Playing a character, even after abstracting what you can with combat rolls, skill rolls, etc., is still a long sequence of making decisions for the character, without knowing important information that the DM knows and the players don't. This is the essence of playing the game as I've experienced it. This is what I'm here for. A DMPC is not doing it, and to some extent distorts the real players' ability to do it.

So if I've given the impression my goal in the conversation has been to convince you your opinion is wrong, please rest assured that that is not the case.

No problem. But even if I only quote one person, please understand that I'm addressing the entire forum.

Here's another point where it seems like our preferences diverge: these elements strike me as skill checks or similar.

Some things are. But if you ever make a decision for your character, based on everything your character has learned through play and trying to deduce things from it that the DM has not yet revealed, then that's an action that a DMPC cannot, by definition, do.

And it happens all the time. Not turning your back on the corner where the still unrevealed enemy rogue is hiding. A paladin putting down her sword to begin healing when the last troll has not yet been seen. Deciding whether to attempt a bluff. Deciding when to attempt Sense Motive. Deciding what I'm trying to convince the king with my Diplomacy roll. These are actual decisions that a player has to make, and that's the actual play of the game.

The players are making real decisions based on the partial information they have. The DMPC cannot do that, because he actually knows the information the players don't.

If solving the mystery or discerning an NPCs motive is a function of my mental skills as a player, that puts constraints on my ability as a player to run a character that is significantly more or significantly less intelligent than I am. It also constrains my ability as a DM to run a campaign for people who are better investigators than I.

How, under that model, do you handle playing an Int 3 character? A Cha 30 one?

An INT 3 character still decides whether to attack the troll in front of him or to go get the one attacking the party wizard. A CHA 30 character will probably convince the king, but he still had to decide what he wanted the king to do. Even with all the rolls, the game is still a long series of decisions of what roll to make when.

If your character shouldn't be able to solve the mystery behind the plot even if you can? If they should instantly grasp a social sortation you would utterly flub? If you are much better at reading the bluffs of the DM than your PC should be at reading the bluffs of the recurring villain?

Or more generally, if you don't abstract elements like these, how do you avoid limiting how different your character can be from you in those elements?

Yes, you abstract many aspects. But you are still making a constant stream of decisions. If not, then you're not playing, you're watching - even if occasionally the action stops while you roll dice.

. I still, at a very basic level, don't get this. I think the difference might be me misunderstanding, at a very basic level, what you mean by a DMPC.

A PC is a character that is a player's tool for exploring an unknown world. She has only one PC at a time, and she generally treats her PC like an extension of herself, caring more about the fate of this character (even if that fate is a noble sacrifice) than about any other.

An NPC is a DM's tool for running the world he knows well enough to run. He has hundreds of them, and implicitly has millions. He generally treats an NPC as a simple tool for running the game. Even if he really likes an NPC, it is no more an extension of the DM than any other.

A DMPC is one of these being treated like the other.

As a general rule, the only real differences between how I play an NPC when I DM and how I play a PC when I don't are:
-Deliberately having to the NPC take a back seat to ensure the PCs stays in the spotlight
-A difference in how much information I need to compartmentalize.

The biggest difference is how I play a PC is that he is mine. My primary goals are to learn his character through play, to complete his missions, to improve his skills and abilities, to get him the best equipment I can. That's what I'm doing when I'm playing the game.

If the DM is doing this for his DMPC, then he's being a bad DM, who's supposed to be neutral.

And if he isn't doing it, he isn't being a player at all.

Truthfully, the difference in information is usually fastly minor. If the game is a packaged adventure, there is a pretty good chance I know the outcome of the plot, whether I am the DM or not. If it is a sandbox world the people at the table designed in a world building exercise, being DM doesn't give me any special knowledge of the world we all designed or how it will change as we use it

If the game is a packaged adventure I've already read or played, I don't want to play, because going through it again is not playing it - except on the level of a series of melees.

From there, the only real difference between a NPC and a DMPC is, to me, the fact that the DMPC is treated as a ongoing member of the party.

Not at all. I have no problem with an NPC who is an ongoing member of the party. I've had allies, friends, bosses, servants, etc. with the party many times. But once that NPC stops being merely the DM's neutral tool for setting up the world for the players to play, and becomes the DM's extension of himself, more important to him than any other NPC, then it distorts what that PC's player is doing, and what the DM is doing.

People have talked about relative emotional investment, but the truth is I tend to be invested in most NPCs I make while world building. Heck, even some I don't make. This is true whether I'm DMing or not. If the table has done enough work to start it out, someone probably have it at least a cursory backstory.

I am too. That doesn't change the fact that playing my PC is trying to make the best decisions to improve my PC (within bounds of his character and abilities), based on the incomplete information I have about this world and this situation. If a DM is doing this for a DMPC, then he's taking unfair advantage. If he isn't, then he's distorted what a PC is.

I had a session not to long ago where my PC died, as did an NPC designed by another player - a saintly old woman named Atsa. I was easy more invested in Atsa. PC = investment doesn't ring true to me.

Are you saying that this is the usual approach for role-players, or pointing out an exception? If it's an exception, then it isn't an argument against my position.

If you are saying that this is the normal state of affairs, then I think you're simply mistaken. In over 40 years of role-playing, I have seen "PC = investment" to be true nearly always. If you don't believe that most players are more invested in their PCs than in most NPCs, then our role-playing experiences are so alien from each other's that we will never be able to communicate.

Question for everyone else in the thread: Are you more in agreement with my statement that players tend to be invested in their PCS, or in Hecuba's statement that it "doesn't ring true"?

It seems to me that this would mean that you would see no value in playing the same adventure over again with different characters.

Yes, absolutely. I played G2 Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl. We fought the White Dragon, defeated him, and then were surprised and off-balance when his mate flew in and attacked us. That utter moment of surprise and shock cannot be duplicated, and it was the coolest, most exciting moment of the adventure. I can pretend that my character is surprised, but that's pretending to be surprised, not being surprised.

I know that there's a Ring of Three Wishes under the remorhaz. How can that not affect our decision to attack it or avoid it?

I can pretend to make decisions for my character, or I can roll to have decisions made for my character, but I can't actually play him.

One of the most interesting HP scenarios I can think of playing is Harry Potter without Harry Potter. If Harry & Neville don't survive Halloween 1981, which of their classmates saved the day when Tommy-boy pops up again in the 90s.

Whoever it is, the player knows about horcruxes already. Somebody might decide to let her character be taken over by Tom Riddle's book, because it happened to Ginny. But she isn't playing Ginny, because that's not what Ginny did. The original Ginny player fiddled with the diary because it was an interesting magic item she knew nothing about. No new player can do that.

The end goal of the campaign would still be the horacruxes, but how you get there would change wildly because of the different characters.

From the beginning, the end goal of the campaign would be the horcruxes. But that wasn't the case originally.

In the first campaign, the goal revolved around avoiding the evil Snape and not caring about the incompetent Quirrel. Only at the big reveal did they discover that Quirrel was the real threat. All the clues were there, and the "players" had to try to understand them.

In the second campaign, what they had to discover was that Tom Riddle's diary took over a student, opened the Chamber, and released the diary. Second time through? We already know.

In the third campaign, the PCs are avoiding the evil killer Sirius Black throughout the book, until they learn that he's on their side, Peter Pettigrew was the real traitor, and he's hiding with Ron.

the word "horcrux" didn't even exist until Book 6 of the first campaign. So you're right - the second campaign would revolve around the horcruxes - which it shouldn't.

I agree with you completely that the distortion caused by a DMPC is very similar to the distortion caused by playing a module a second time. It would be more accurate to say that a DMPC in the party is closer to playing with one character who has been through the module before. If you want to play with that distortion. Feel free.

But what is distorts is the long series of decisions that you make, and that's the most important part of the game for me.

Larrx

2016-06-09, 10:19 AM

Question for everyone else in the thread: Are you more in agreement with my statement that players tend to be invested in their PCS, or in Hecuba's statement that it "doesn't ring true"?

I agree with your statement that players are typically more invested in their PCs then in the tapestry of NPCs around them. Generally. And I agree with your game-theory-esque explanations for why this is usually true. I'm not sure how much I could add to the, very solid, argument you're already pursuing.

RPGs are games, and without the investment that Jay R talks about, the game falls apart. So I'll do the story part.

Without that investment, the story falls apart too. The players have to be the protagonists of the story. I mean, they should be . . . because that's the best way to run games. But even if you think differently, there isn't really a choice. You could run a game about how the PCs decide to run a leather working shop during the apocalypse, and serve up leather to the world saving heroes, and the PCs would still be the protagonists. Because the PCs are especially invested in their characters (and the DM is too!). And the camera follows them.

Is there sometimes a particularly interesting NPC that you have instant affection for, and that you care about very much? Sure. But if you just want to watch them, then you're only listening to a story. If you care about how this cool character makes you feel, and wonder what you might do, then that's awesome. And if that affects your future actions, then you're playing the game. There's honestly no way to remove the player from the scenario.

AnimeTheCat

2016-06-09, 11:17 AM

Thank you for taking the time to clarify that for me, and for generally being a nice sot of fellow. :smallsmile:

If you do think that a DMPC is "a character [who travels] with the party regularly and that character doesn't change unless he/she dies," then why does it need a special name? I mean, that basically describes animal companions, familiars, and cohorts. All of which are NPCs.

Now that I have a better understanding of how your games go, I don't think we actually disagree. If you write a character, and that character travels with the party, and those are your only criteria for calling it a DMPC . . . then you're doing everything right.

The majority of people that draw a distinction between NPCs and the subset of NPCs that are DMPCs treat the two things very differently (or have seen them treated very differently).

The only issue I might see (and this is probably just a case of you being reasonably concise) is that death shouldn't be the only way out. The party should be allowed, for example, to simply leave the character behind.

My pleasure to clarify. The biggest cause of "overexcitement" and people being upset is when the original sender of the information keeps it open or chooses not to clarify where that would make things much more explicit.

I Feel that the only reason I put the tag "DMPC" on the characters I run is because that character is no different from any of the rest of the characters and he's getting equal shares in the money, exp, glory, etc. I do draw a distinction between NPCs and DMPCs and the only reason I treat them differently is because the DMPC has been there from the onset of the campaign whereas the NPC is static. I use static because the NPC (In most cases) won't go to them, and if they do go to the Players, they don't change unless the characters make them change (diplomacy, intimidation, bluff, major world events, etc). The NPC is someone (like a professional, a judge, a mayor, the High Priest, etc.) that will be in their location (Static work center, Courthouse, Office, Temple) to where the NPCs will go. There are of course exceptions like a pickpocket in the local pub who initiates the encounter with the party, the town crier running up to the "New People" in town, or the town beggar asking for a copper. Even so, as (non-player) characters, they are all static in the sense of their character whereas PCs and DMPCs are so fluid and Dynamic. I feel that this same dynamic outlook is unique to the PCs and that NPCs shouldn't encroach on this.

On a final note, death is not the only way out. If my players ever tell me that they don't like a particular character I'm running, I'll have him receive a message that he's needed elsewhere from a guild, or that they need him back at the temple asap, or that his master needs his assistance in the wizards tower. If the Player's decision that they don't like a character has to do with a planned major alignment change (evil->good/lawful->chaotic) and the DMPC I had been using is diametrically opposed to that new alignment, they may even see each other again as enemies or rivals. There are so many ways to phase out characters in D&D, I just used death in that case because it is a natural end vs an end that is engineered.

Barstro

2016-06-09, 12:12 PM

I agree with your statement that players are typically more invested in their PCs then in the tapestry of NPCs around them.
I'm invested in the strategy that I planned for the game. This just so happens to typically be personified in my PC, but it often is the correlation of my PC with other PCs and possibly NPCs (I'm rather teamworky (I'm sure that's a word)).

The players have to be the protagonists of the story. I mean, they should be . . . because that's the best way to run games.

I wonder if this is the basis of our minor disagreements. I think the PCs should be the protagonists. The Players should decide what the PCs do, but should also be able to distance their own personal knowledge so that decisions are made "in character". Eg. I don't solve puzzles or riddles that I know if I feel my character would not know.

And that's why I do not have at much dislike for DMPCs as you; I expect my DMs to be able to compartmentalize and play the PCs without utilizing the DM's knowledge.

But I think we still also disagree on the definitions of DMPC vs. NPC, so the result between both of us might still be agreement in practice because what I consider a correctly run DMPC is your definition of an NPC.

killem2

2016-06-09, 01:30 PM

And that's why I do not have at much dislike for DMPCs as you; I expect my DMs to be able to compartmentalize and play the PCs without utilizing the DM's knowledge.

That's why most people have a problem with them. Because they wrongfully assume that just because you personally know what happens next, you automatically will abuse it. It's a foolish thought process. No one ever said that being a DM and having a PC of your own would be easy. Hence my three steps should be obeyed before you play your own player character.

killem2

2016-06-09, 01:42 PM

There is only one rule: a DMPC is okay until your players feel that it isn't. Ask them and adjust accordingly. Always tell them that if they don't like it, they can tell and you will scale back the DMPC or pull him out completely.

Nope.

You have just as much right to play a PC as anyone else. Just playing a PC is not good enough to tell me to stop doing it. If they are abusing it then you have an issue.

Bobby Baratheon

2016-06-09, 02:17 PM

I don't know if I have anything unique to add to this debate (which, though fascinating, feels like it's been going in circles for a few pages now), but I'll toss my hat in the ring.

I mostly get shoehorned into playing DM (of the 5 different groups I've played with, I was DM for four of the five, and the one where I wasn't was because I was 12 and new to the game). It's rewarding, and I enjoy greatly helping my players to learn the game and have fun as a group. However, I like to build characters as much as anyone, and I like to be part of the party. As the perpetual DM, I don't really get a chance to do that outside of building the world and it's inhabitants. Which is a lot of fun, but it's kind of draining to put a lot of thought and energy into building an NPC that the players ignore or murder. I made an interesting bandit king who could be talked into teaming up with the PC's? Nope, they murdered him immediately (I'm not complaining. It was a foreseeable outcome). Cool crime boss willing to temporarily employ them? They liked him, but got sidetracked trying to train bulettes and forgot about him. I guess I could just bring them back with a different serial number or do a bit railroading to bring them back, but that would feel disingenuous and forced. It's kind of hard to feel connected to your NPCs when they keep getting cycled out, and while I have the cool big picture NPCs (the real movers and shakers) they don't really turn up enough in the sessions to enjoy playing them. Hence, my tendency to play DMPCs - it gives me a consistent connection with my world. I always check with my players as a group and individually if they think it's okay, and by and large there have been no problems with it so far. I haven't found it to be too difficult to separate my DM knowledge from my PC's knowledge. I do the same thing with all of the NPCs I run in the game too. None of them are omniscient, and each of them know different things about the world around them. Hasn't been all that difficult for me, though YMMV and I suppose you'd have to mind read my players to see if they have secret bottled up aggression towards my characters to be really sure.

I guess, after that rambling paragraph, what I'm trying to say is that DMPCs can add to a group if done well. Are they exactly the same as PCs? No. It takes a different and often more passive mindset to do it, but it can still be done and the group can still benefit from it and enjoy it, and the DM can as well. The paragraph above isn't so much an argument as it is a summary of why I feel the way I do about DMPCs. Take it or leave it. We each have different views on the subject, some of which are clearly very passionate.

I think the forum has generated some sound guidelines here for playing good DMPCs, and persuasive arguments both for and against them. Hopefully the OP can find what he needs.

Hecuba

2016-06-09, 05:19 PM

Some things are. But if you ever make a decision for your character, based on everything your character has learned through play and trying to deduce things from it that the DM has not yet revealed, then that's an action that a DMPC cannot, by definition, do.

[...]

The players are making real decisions based on the partial information they have. The DMPC cannot do that, because he actually knows the information the players don't.

When I make those decisions, I'm actively avoiding making them based on my deductions as a player about what the DM might be intending. My deductions, insights, and intuition are player knowledge -- I always actively work to screen them out of my decision process.

A PC is a character that is a player's tool for exploring an unknown world. She has only one PC at a time, and she generally treats her PC like an extension of herself, caring more about the fate of this character (even if that fate is a noble sacrifice) than about any other.

This seems to be one of the differences in our Outlook. I don't particularly expect the world to be unknown. The most rewarding table I play at regularly is one where the campaigns and the worlds we use are designed collaboratively before we start a campaign. Everyone knows the world and campaign overview as well as everyone else, and no-one tends to know exactly how it will turn out - be they player or DM.

It is more common for us to hide details of our PCs about each other than to not know setting details or the general implications of our current actions. (Someone got the idea from that AGC comic run where they did that, and the group liked the idea).

Looking back, I don't think I've ever actively avoided campaigns where there is a "campaign plot" that requires the DM to hide plot twists or discoveries from the players. I don't, however, see it as a major draw.

Not at all. I have no problem with an NPC who is an ongoing member of the party. I've had allies, friends, bosses, servants, etc. with the party many times. But once that NPC stops being merely the DM's neutral tool for setting up the world for the players to play, and becomes the DM's extension of himself, more important to him than any other NPC, then it distorts what that PC's player is doing, and what the DM is doing.

Well, I certainly expect the DM to be emotionally detached from their PC while DMing. We seem to agree that that is appropriate for the DM.

I'm just not sure why they can't be repress those emotions when needed to DM and turn them back on when not needed.

Are you saying that this is the usual approach for role-players, or pointing out an exception? If it's an exception, then it isn't an argument against my position.

If you are saying that this is the normal state of affairs, then I think you're simply mistaken. In over 40 years of role-playing, I have seen "PC = investment" to be true nearly always. If you don't believe that most players are more invested in their PCs than in most NPCs, then our role-playing experiences are so alien from each other's that we will never be able to communicate.

I'm saying that it's not something I'd considered before in the decades I've been playing RPGs, and from my brief consideration it's not something that accurately reflects my experience.

[much of what follows in the next couple paragraphs is not a response, per se, so much as exploring this topic]

When I role-play, I try to immerse myself in the character as a person. And while most people I know have some streak of egotism (as is generally considered healthy), their idea of self is generally something they experience based on how they relate to the people and world around them.

Unless its a matter of a slow death, my character probably isn't going to mourn their own death. The probably will mourn Atsa's. Or their sister's. Or their old master's. If they are dying a slow death, a great deal of their emotional relation to it is likely caught up in regrets about things done and left undone. The things and places and people that they are leaving behind. There might also be fear of the death itself, but there could also could be a desire to die well.

Even the most self-centered PC will probably have their idea of "self" defined by their relationship with the rest of the world. Thus, when I am attempting to submerge myself in that PC's mindset, I'm generally explicitly thinking about every character except the PC and only addressing the PC themselves by implication.

I certainly think about the PC explicitly enough when working out-of-character, but if I'm doing it while role-playing as that character it's usually an indication that I've had to break submersion to think about some element of their character I'd not previously defined.

By some measure, this does seem to imply a greater degree of investment. I've certainly invested more time in defining the life story of Rom, my current cleric, than the table collectively does for most NPCs.

But, at the same time, I wouldn't particularly mind dropping his character sheet in the trash if he dies. He's a PC. He's disposable. He could die from a string of unlucky rolls. And if he does, another PC will replace him in the party.

Most NPCs worth drawing up as anything more than Guard Mook variant 5, in contrast, aren't going to get replaced. The setting will be changed in some measurable way -- and probably more so than for a PC death.

Yes, absolutely. I played G2 Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl. We fought the White Dragon, defeated him, and then were surprised and off-balance when his mate flew in and attacked us. That utter moment of surprise and shock cannot be duplicated, and it was the coolest, most exciting moment of the adventure. I can pretend that my character is surprised, but that's pretending to be surprised, not being surprised.

I don't put much value on surprise. I don't actively dislike them, but I don't get much enjoyment from them either.

I know that there's a Ring of Three Wishes under the remorhaz. How can that not affect our decision to attack it or avoid it?

I can pretend to make decisions for my character, or I can roll to have decisions made for my character, but I can't actually play him.

All I ever try to do is make the decisions for my character. To submerge myself in them and try to think as they would think, knowing what they know. If my character doesn't know that the ugly centipede is sitting on the ring, why is it entering into the internal dialogue where my character thinks about and reacts to the world around them?

Whoever it is, the player knows about horcruxes already. Somebody might decide to let her character be taken over by Tom Riddle's book, because it happened to Ginny. But she isn't playing Ginny, because that's not what Ginny did. The original Ginny player fiddled with the diary because it was an interesting magic item she knew nothing about. No new player can do that.

Or they could decide to do that because they decided to feel how Ginny feels: to get caught up in her homesickness. To feel lonely even in a room full of people because all of your brothers are overshadowing you. Heck, even Ron is friends with Harry bloody Potter now. Ron. And Harry will never be friends with you. You're just his friend's silly little firstie sister. The one with the silly crush on him.

At least Tom's there as a friend. And he's a good friend. He listens when you cry and comforts you.

If you immerse yourself in Ginny's situation and get yourself caught up in her emotions, why on earth would you not make the same decision? Why would your turn away from such a good friend, even if he is made out of ink and paper?

From the beginning, the end goal of the campaign would be the horcruxes. But that wasn't the case originally.

In the first campaign, the goal revolved around avoiding the evil Snape and not caring about the incompetent Quirrel. Only at the big reveal did they discover that Quirrel was the real threat. All the clues were there, and the "players" had to try to understand them.

As a reader, I found the books very engaging but never found the endings much of a surprise. Snape was an obvious red herring. Quirrel was suspect the 2nd time he showed up, both because there was no other reason for him to show up and because of his juxtaposition with Snape. This did nothing to prevent me from enjoying the books.

If the players are to mirror the readers, they may well understand the clues well before the characters. And just like "when will Harry catch on to the fact Dumbledore knows Draco is trying to kill him?" and "When will Dresden figure out that Elaine is working for his enemies?" make for an interesting read (whether I turn out to be right or wrong), the question of when my PC Bob be able to figure out known plot element X is one of the most engaging elements of the game.

I agree with you completely that the distortion caused by a DMPC is very similar to the distortion caused by playing a module a second time. It would be more accurate to say that a DMPC in the party is closer to playing with one character who has been through the module before. If you want to play with that distortion. Feel free.
That's not at all a major issue for me (and, in fact, a common element of games I play in). That's probably why I don't consider it to be a separate issue related to "DMPCs" in particular.

I suspect the differing importance that distortion has to us is tied to our differing valuation of being surprised as a player.

martixy

2016-06-09, 06:19 PM

I don't see that as obvious at all. It's no different than playing chess against yourself: you just have to compartmentalize the knowledge.

It would be the same skill-set needed to, for example, role-play Napoleon in the lead-up to Waterloo. The player knows that he will loose, but the character should absolutely not be influenced by that knowledge.

Edit: Actually chess has no information asymmetry, at least in theory. A better option would be, perhaps, playing Hearts or Cribbage or some other card game against yourself - something I actually find much easier.

Not every world is designed by the DM - indeed, I find it most word building most rewarding when many people take part. Moreover, you could be in a well designed world, or even a module.

Consider the most extreme case - running a module that has been played through before at the table. Would you be fine with the DM having a PC then? If not, what advantage do you see for the DM's PC that the PCs of the other players lack?

Chess is what is called a "perfect information" game, FYI.
I do agree with you, but I also think that we all suffer from (however subtle) unconscious biases. Something is going to sneak in at some point. It may not have a significant impact, but chances are it will happen.
I'm merely avoiding an absolutist stance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqz53d-fYL8), if you will.

A PC is a character that is a player's tool for exploring an unknown world. She has only one PC at a time, and she generally treats her PC like an extension of herself, caring more about the fate of this character (even if that fate is a noble sacrifice) than about any other.

This is not universal by a long shot. As I've been trying to argue, different players go to the game for different reasons.
It may be your primary draw, but it is certainly not everyone's.
DMG2 has a lot to say on that. And since you mentioned you're academically inclined to fields with "game" in their name, you might also find this (https://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf) interesting. (Disclaimer: Before you go explaining how game theory is something completely different, yes, I am fully aware of the distinction between it and game design)

Hecuba only confirms this further.

You've chosen what is perhaps the worst aesthetic you can look for when playing a PC as a DM. It doesn't make your argument invalid, just weak.

The point being, there are players for whom the distinction will matter and some, for whom it will not. Case in point - you guys.

In summary:
Yes, there is always distortion.
No, it is not always significant.

Quertus

2016-06-09, 06:51 PM

Some things are. But if you ever make a decision for your character, based on everything your character has learned through play and trying to deduce things from it that the DM has not yet revealed, then that's an action that a DMPC cannot, by definition, do.

And it happens all the time. Not turning your back on the corner where the still unrevealed enemy rogue is hiding. A paladin putting down her sword to begin healing when the last troll has not yet been seen. Deciding whether to attempt a bluff. Deciding when to attempt Sense Motive. Deciding what I'm trying to convince the king with my Diplomacy roll. These are actual decisions that a player has to make, and that's the actual play of the game.

The players are making real decisions based on the partial information they have. The DMPC cannot do that, because he actually knows the information the players don't.

Running a module, on first read through, the DM can make decisions based on partial information. With a minimal amount of role-playing, a good DM can have the character make decisions based on partial information in pretty much any game.

A PC is a character that is a player's tool for exploring an unknown world. She has only one PC at a time, and she generally treats her PC like an extension of herself, caring more about the fate of this character (even if that fate is a noble sacrifice) than about any other.

An NPC is a DM's tool for running the world he knows well enough to run. He has hundreds of them, and implicitly has millions. He generally treats an NPC as a simple tool for running the game. Even if he really likes an NPC, it is no more an extension of the DM than any other.

A DMPC is one of these being treated like the other.

If the game is a packaged adventure I've already read or played, I don't want to play, because going through it again is not playing it - except on the level of a series of melees.

"Exploring an unknown world" is probably my favorite part of playing RPGs. But there is more - much more - to RPGs than exploration. Acting, role-playing, strategy, tactics, risks, riddles, puzzles, diplomacy, cons, revenge, accumulation of wealth / power / fame / fluffy bunnies / whatever, chases, escapes, true love, miracles. There are so many different minigames, it feels disingenuous to say that the game is really only one or two of them. But I agree - exploration is one of the best minigames, and it is one of several that a dmpc does not get to experience. This is, of course, only a reason to prefer to be a player instead of a DM, and not a reason why dmpcs are inherently bad for the game. There are plenty of reasons why dmpcs can be bad, that we don't need to be inventing new, fake ones.

Also, not everyone only runs one PC at a time. (Although I rarely get to) I personally prefer to be running about 3 or so characters at a time in most games, so that I can contribute even when my character is incapacitated. This also prevents, "I never want to run dumb characters, because I always want to be able to participate in solving riddles" and its ilk. That way, a player can run dumb characters, and still be able to legitimately contribute to riddles.

I am too. That doesn't change the fact that playing my PC is trying to make the best decisions to improve my PC (within bounds of his character and abilities), based on the incomplete information I have about this world and this situation. If a DM is doing this for a DMPC, then he's taking unfair advantage. If he isn't, then he's distorted what a PC is

Again, role-playing. The DM should be making the "best" decisions he can, based on the information that the character has. Just like any other player. If he isn't, and is using OOC information, he's a bad player.

This isn't a symptom of the problems with a dmpc. If this is a common problem for a dmpc, it is simply a sign that DMs are bad players.

.Are you saying that this is the usual approach for role-players, or pointing out an exception? If it's an exception, then it isn't an argument against my position.

If you are saying that this is the normal state of affairs, then I think you're simply mistaken. In over 40 years of role-playing, I have seen "PC = investment" to be true nearly always. If you don't believe that most players are more invested in their PCs than in most NPCs, then our role-playing experiences are so alien from each other's that we will never be able to communicate.

Question for everyone else in the thread: Are you more in agreement with my statement that players tend to be invested in their PCS, or in Hecuba's statement that it "doesn't ring true"?

Hmmm... this one is actually tricky.

I am happier having one of my PCs die when I am DM, simply because, that way, I know that the death was fair. I suppose I am personally more invested in "reality" than in any given character.

I have been sadder about a campaign being over than about the death if a particular character within that campaign. Keep in mind, I hail from ye olde meat grinder days.

And I have experienced the "loss of npc was harder than loss of pc" that was referenced.

Despite all that, I agree that the game runs best when the players have some level of investment in their characters. And I personally prefer to be playing a character that I "like best" compared to the rest of the world. But I don't view it as an inherent requirement for the role-playing community. YMMV.

I know that there's a Ring of Three Wishes under the remorhaz. How can that not affect our decision to attack it or avoid it?

Again, role-playing.

Whoever it is, the player knows about horcruxes already. Somebody might decide to let her character be taken over by Tom Riddle's book, because it happened to Ginny. But she isn't playing Ginny, because that's not what Ginny did. The original Ginny player fiddled with the diary because it was an interesting magic item she knew nothing about. No new player can do that.

Quertus would. Because that's what Quertus does. Even knowing how bad an idea it is, I'd still have my signature character investigate the book. Because role-playing. And I'd still enjoy the results of his experimentation on the book. The book might not enjoy it, though. :smalltongue:

Of course, he'd probably have copied (and improved upon) half the artifacts in the series before the end of book one, but that's just because he's a bit beyond the expected power level of the protagonists. :smallwink:

From the beginning, the end goal of the campaign would be the horcruxes. But that wasn't the case originally.

In the first campaign, the goal revolved around avoiding the evil Snape and not caring about the incompetent Quirrel. Only at the big reveal did they discover that Quirrel was the real threat. All the clues were there, and the "players" had to try to understand them.

In the second campaign, what they had to discover was that Tom Riddle's diary took over a student, opened the Chamber, and released the diary. Second time through? We already know.

In the third campaign, the PCs are avoiding the evil killer Sirius Black throughout the book, until they learn that he's on their side, Peter Pettigrew was the real traitor, and he's hiding with Ron.

the word "horcrux" didn't even exist until Book 6 of the first campaign. So you're right - the second campaign would revolve around the horcruxes - which it shouldn't.

I agree with you completely that the distortion caused by a DMPC is very similar to the distortion caused by playing a module a second time. It would be more accurate to say that a DMPC in the party is closer to playing with one character who has been through the module before. If you want to play with that distortion. Feel free.

But what is distorts is the long series of decisions that you make, and that's the most important part of the game for me.

Not only would Quertus not start the game caring about the horcruxes, I don't think Quertus would ever care about the horcruxes. Except to study them. Leadership of magic society is changing. And? It's changing violently. And? Most revolutions are violent.

Voldamort directly threatened one of Quertus' friends? Well, that's a different story.

Now, here's the problem with role-playing: when I didn't know what was going on, I had suspicions that were different than those of the protagonists. Running through Harry potter once, I could easily RP my suspicions, if I was given the same information as the original protagonists. But they were my suspicions. What's trickier is, the seventh time through, determining what this particular character's suspicions should be. Few players can RP well enough that each of their 7 times running through a given scenario, they can distinguish between their ideas and their character's ideas in a way that makes each time through different and enjoyable, and not simply, "the player's ideas or the idiot ball".

Larrx

2016-06-10, 09:22 AM

I'm invested in the strategy that I planned for the game. This just so happens to typically be personified in my PC, but it often is the correlation of my PC with other PCs and possibly NPCs (I'm rather teamworky (I'm sure that's a word)).

Well, yes, but if you're invested in how your character interacts with, affects, or is effected by other PCs and NPCs, that still counts as being invested in your character.

I wonder if this is the basis of our minor disagreements. I think the PCs should be the protagonists. The Players should decide what the PCs do, but should also be able to distance their own personal knowledge so that decisions are made "in character". Eg. I don't solve puzzles or riddles that I know if I feel my character would not know.

And that's why I do not have at much dislike for DMPCs as you; I expect my DMs to be able to compartmentalize and play the PCs without utilizing the DM's knowledge.

But I think we still also disagree on the definitions of DMPC vs. NPC, so the result between both of us might still be agreement in practice because what I consider a correctly run DMPC is your definition of an NPC.

An unfortunate mistake, how I phrased that. Totally my fault. I also think that the PCs should be the protagonists, not players. I misspoke, and I apologize.

That being said, the meta-gaming challenge is not the reason that DMPCs are a bad idea. I . . . never should have even spoken about it, it seems like such a distraction now. :smallsmile:

Once upon 5 pages ago, I was trying to explain that DMs who think they can play and run games simultaneously . . . just can't. The players experience a truly different thing than a DM with what s/he's calling a "PC" does. It just doesn't work. You can mitigate the asymmetry of knowledge, but you cannot get the player experience.

The dysfunction comes when you elevate, or devalue, one NPC beyond, or below, others. There's just no reason to do this.

Can you imagine if a DM tried to make one of their NPCs the protagonist? It happens! How boring is that story arc for the actual players at he table. Can you imagine?

Edit: typos :smallannoyed:

Larrx

2016-06-10, 09:59 AM

Again, role-playing. The DM should be making the "best" decisions he can, based on the information that the character has. Just like any other player. If he isn't, and is using OOC information, he's a bad player.

This isn't a symptom of the problems with a dmpc. If this is a common problem for a dmpc, it is simply a sign that DMs are bad players.

No. Just no. This is commonly, and has recently been, touted as a way for a DM to make a DMPC inoffensive, but it is not what the DM should be doing. The DM is not any other player. He has a different job.

If the DM creates a character to travel with the party, then it should be in service to the story. What that character knows, and how the character behaves should add to the tone of the campaign, or be an alternative to dry exposition, or become the crux of an important choice, or exist as a living consequence, or . . . or . . or.

I guarantee, that if a DM is relying on knowledge checks and tables to figure out how a character they control behaves (outside of combat) then they're doing something wrong.

The problem with this DMPC is that they could be more. As soon as you arrive at the conclusion that this DM controlled character can do this, but can't do these or interact with those, than you realize that there's a problem, right? I kinda feel like I'm going crazy here.

dascarletm

2016-06-10, 10:15 AM

The problem with this DMPC is that they could be more. As soon as you arrive at the conclusion that this DM controlled character can do this, but can't do these or interact with those, than you realize that there's a problem, right? I kinda feel like I'm going crazy here.

I don't think you are crazy, but I will say that while there are some things a DMPC can't do and PCs can do, there are also things a DMPC can do that PCs can't, narratively speaking.

If used properly they can be a useful tool. You may have to put up a "trigger warning" to the players as shown in this thread.:smalltongue:

Larrx

2016-06-10, 10:44 AM

I don't think you are crazy, but I will say that while there are some things a DMPC can't do and PCs can do, there are also things a DMPC can do that PCs can't, narratively speaking.

If used properly they can be a useful tool. You may have to put up a "trigger warning" to the players as shown in this thread.:smalltongue:

Ok, that was a legitimate, really happened, laugh out loud moment. I almost want to put it in my sig. Why can I never be that funny? :smallsmile:

Ohhhh . . . it also means I'm about to get lambasted by the other people in this thread doesn't it. /scared

But back to your actual point. It's the 'can do things that PCs can't' part that I think should get the focus. And the 'can't do' that should be discarded. You can't be a PC, so stop trying. You can create a wonderful story for you and your friends to enjoy. So do that.

dascarletm

2016-06-10, 11:15 AM

Ok, that was a legitimate, really happened, laugh out loud moment. I almost want to put it in my sig. Why can I never be that funny? :smallsmile:
That's all I ever try to accomplish. My goal in life is to have a quote in 50% of GitP's signatures.

But back to your actual point. It's the 'can do things that PCs can't' part that I think should get the focus. And the 'can't do' that should be discarded. You can't be a PC, so stop trying. You can create a wonderful story for you and your friends to enjoy. So do that.
I agree. I never liked the term; I consider it an oxymoron. However, it seems like any NPC that is grouped in the player's party for the majority of the campaign seems to be labeled as such.

AnimeTheCat

2016-06-10, 11:15 AM

If the DM creates a character to travel with the party, then it should be in service to the story. What that character knows, and how the character behaves should add to the tone of the campaign, or be an alternative to dry exposition, or become the crux of an important choice, or exist as a living consequence, or . . . or . . or.

I think this part here kind of dabbles in to the realm of making the DMPC more important than the PCs... I mean, now you've got a character that you're invested in and the story is going to revolve around them. Specifically if you make the DMPC style character the crux of an important decision, you've just made that character more important than what the PCs could possibly otherwise want to do.

Larrx

2016-06-10, 11:47 AM

I think this part here kind of dabbles in to the realm of making the DMPC more important than the PCs... I mean, now you've got a character that you're invested in and the story is going to revolve around them. Specifically if you make the DMPC style character the crux of an important decision, you've just made that character more important than what the PCs could possibly otherwise want to do.

I haven't, and I'll try to explain why.

First . . . just for funzies, I'll reiterate that no DM controlled character should be more invested in then any other. In fact, DMs shouldn't invest in their characters at all, they invest in the game and story. If a character ends up being important to that, it is simply a coincidence. But all this is at best ancillary to the point of this post.

When I talk about a DM controlled character (even a party member!) being the crux of an important decision, I mean it as a real decision. That the party makes, and that (while the DM might care very deeply about the outcome, because it will change the direction of the campaign) is left completely up to the players. It's a surprise!

How do I explain this better? Another example? Ok. The party meets a street waif. They befriend him, and go on many adventures together. Eventually the party has a need to get into a fancy party at the palace. The waif offers to hook them up with the thieves guild, and sneak them inside. They could also leverage their relationship with a black sheep noble to get a for-real invitation. That might hurt their relationship with the waif though, he hates nobles. So the party is at a crossroads. The choice they make will better define who they are. They might make allies or lose them. They might be expressing an affinity for diplomacy over deception. Or the opposite.

Either way, the decision is about the players, and about how they define themselves, and about how they want to shape the campaign. The waif is just a storytelling tool, used to get to the good stuff. It's not about him.

The character is not more important than the PCs, he's just a great mechanism to develop the PCs and move the story forward.

That's the sort of thing I meant.

Quertus

2016-06-10, 01:21 PM

No. Just no. This is commonly, and has recently been, touted as a way for a DM to make a DMPC inoffensive, but it is not what the DM should be doing. The DM is not any other player. He has a different job.

If the DM creates a character to travel with the party, then it should be in service to the story. What that character knows, and how the character behaves should add to the tone of the campaign, or be an alternative to dry exposition, or become the crux of an important choice, or exist as a living consequence, or . . . or . . or.

I guarantee, that if a DM is relying on knowledge checks and tables to figure out how a character they control behaves (outside of combat) then they're doing something wrong.

The problem with this DMPC is that they could be more. As soon as you arrive at the conclusion that this DM controlled character can do this, but can't do these or interact with those, than you realize that there's a problem, right? I kinda feel like I'm going crazy here.

Ok, I wasn't sure I knew where the piece of the post I was responding to here was going to begin with, but your response seems to indicate that I missed the mark.

I was simply saying that any player, whether or not they happen to be the DM, should play their character the same way: based on IC knowledge, not on OOC knowledge.

Nowhere did I mention knowledge checks or tables, or make the assertion that proper role-playing was sufficient to make a dmpc inoffensive. Necessary, perhaps, but that is not the same thing as sufficient.

Saying that the DM has a different job than the players... this being a d&d forum, that's generally true (but see below). Saying that running a dmpc consumes DM headspace is true. Saying that therefore running a dmpc detracts from the game does not necessarily follow - that only is true if what the dmpc adds is less than what is lost in attention to other details. Any assertion that adding a dmpc will always result in a net gain, or always result in a net loss, are patently false, even just looking at my own experiences.

As to what a DM should be doing... I personally believe that the DM should be working to maximize everyone's fun. Just like all the rest of the players.

As to how that is implemented, it can vary from group to group. The DM makes the world, right? Well, many DMs run games in published settings; other group's have collaborative world-building. The DM runs the world, right? In some groups, the DM may actually be responsible for less of the world than the players. The DM picks the quests, right? Not always - especially not in a sandbox. Even things like rules arbitration can be handed off to the players. So there is very little in the modern game that is strictly the purview of the DM.

So, if the concern is that a dmpc will eat up DM headspace, that is an argument for reducing the burdon on the DM, by transferring some tasks that are traditionally handled by the DM into the players' hands.

Also note that my example of a dmpc is simply the DMs PC in a game with a rotating DM. Building a character specifically to be a dmpc is outside the scope of my comments on dmpc theory.

Barstro

2016-06-10, 01:50 PM

An unfortunate mistake, how I phrased that. Totally my fault. I also think that the PCs should be the protagonists, not players. I misspoke, and I apologize.
Eh, I thought that might have been the case. I just didn't feel like inquiring because I had a point I wanted to make. That's on me and I apologize.

Can you imagine if a DM tried to make one of their NPCs the protagonist? It happens! How boring is that story arc for the actual players at he table. Can you imagine?
I can. And to me, a DMPC that does not reach that level is, at worst, tolerable.

The players experience a truly different thing than a DM with what s/he's calling a "PC" does. It just doesn't work. You can mitigate the asymmetry of knowledge, but you cannot get the player experience.
I'll give you that one, and it's why DMs can trust that I will never research or look ahead (or if I do, it's to save time by making sure that I personally have the knowledge that my character would inherently have, and not to ruin the story).

Barstro

2016-06-10, 01:56 PM

How do I explain this better? Another example? Ok. The party meets a street waif... Bla bla bla
That's a good example. I would probably do what I felt my character would desire. But, catering to someone he's had several fights with is something that he would do and his opinion would be swayed. And I know that other players at the table would go with the waif just because it was more than a mere NPC.

conceded.

Troacctid

2016-06-10, 02:23 PM

This all reminds me of those people who hate paladins (or even the LG alignment in general) because they supposedly ruin any campaign they're played in.

Larrx

2016-06-10, 03:00 PM

Ok, I wasn't sure I knew where the piece of the post I was responding to here was going to begin with, but your response seems to indicate that I missed the mark.

I was simply saying that any player, whether or not they happen to be the DM, should play their character the same way: based on IC knowledge, not on OOC knowledge.

Nowhere did I mention knowledge checks or tables, or make the assertion that proper role-playing was sufficient to make a dmpc inoffensive. Necessary, perhaps, but that is not the same thing as sufficient.

Saying that the DM has a different job than the players... this being a d&d forum, that's generally true (but see below). Saying that running a dmpc consumes DM headspace is true. Saying that therefore running a dmpc detracts from the game does not necessarily follow - that only is true if what the dmpc adds is less than what is lost in attention to other details. Any assertion that adding a dmpc will always result in a net gain, or always result in a net loss, are patently false, even just looking at my own experiences.

As to what a DM should be doing... I personally believe that the DM should be working to maximize everyone's fun. Just like all the rest of the players.

As to how that is implemented, it can vary from group to group. The DM makes the world, right? Well, many DMs run games in published settings; other group's have collaborative world-building. The DM runs the world, right? In some groups, the DM may actually be responsible for less of the world than the players. The DM picks the quests, right? Not always - especially not in a sandbox. Even things like rules arbitration can be handed off to the players. So there is very little in the modern game that is strictly the purview of the DM.

So, if the concern is that a dmpc will eat up DM headspace, that is an argument for reducing the burdon on the DM, by transferring some tasks that are traditionally handled by the DM into the players' hands.

Also note that my example of a dmpc is simply the DMs PC in a game with a rotating DM. Building a character specifically to be a dmpc is outside the scope of my comments on dmpc theory.

Yeah, I did lump you in with a bunch of other recent posts that sort of agreed with you. I shouldn't have done that, but, in my defense, the posts were really long, and I picked you to quote because I thought it was the best written. Forgive me?

So any specific points I made in the post you quoted that don't apply to you, you can just discard. Fair?

To address the specific points you made in this reply:

I concede that a (rotating) DMPC may be necessary when the DM also rotates. It isn't always necessary, but often it's unavoidable. So do it then if it's the only option.

I have . . . no opinion regarding conservation of the DMs headspace. That has never been an issue that I was even aware of. I just always imagined that the DMs headspace was 'enough.' I don't think it's a factor in the 'DMPC or not' debate.

"I was simply saying that any player, whether or not they happen to be the DM, should play their character the same way: based on IC knowledge, not on OOC knowledge".

Again, and this seems to be a pattern for me today, this is kinda off-topic. Yet I feel the need to respond.

This is just not how games work. I mean, it works that way in encounters (is that what you mean?), but not in games. For it to work this way the game would have to be a pure simulation. No game is this. People have tried, but no game is this. It would require that every character was created before the game started. A cast of millions. And there would have to be decision trees, and rules to resolve conflicts behind the scenes. This isn't how games go.

DMs create characters on the fly, or between sessions, to converge with where the characters are going. Their personalities serve a story purpose. Greg the dispondent bartender is not created so that the DM can simulate what a despondent guy would do, he's there so the PCs can see evidence of why the oppressive government is bad.

Growl the bear is there, not so the DM can take appropriate in-game actions, but because there has been too much talking today and the game needs to break out the tiles.

I guess this is sort of a subtle point (because of course all characters should be played well), but a well played PC, and a well played NPC (who has to serve many roles) really are different animals. They shouldn't be played the same way.

And you're probably going to reply that all games are not like what I described above, and you're right. And you mention a lot of variant styles of play above, and they exist. I . . . don't really have an opinion about that apart from the fact that they're variant rules.

I'm concerned with the general experience, the only variant system that interests me today (in this thread) is 'should you use a DMPC.'

I mean, except the rotating thing. Sigh. I guess I'll comment on varients if people poke me enough. I'm so weak.:smallsmile:

Larrx

2016-06-10, 03:13 PM

This all reminds me of those people who hate paladins (or even the LG alignment in general) because they supposedly ruin any campaign they're played in.

But . . . one is about PC behavior and one is about DM behavior. Just that alone should distinguish them. Is it a level of acrimony? Because I think, on the whole, we've all been reasonably polite, friendly and . . . reasonable. Is it how strongly people stick to their guns? Everyone seems to have a least bent a bit. It almost seems like we're nearing a consensus. Even if we aren't I think we're all gaining a greater understanding of the issue.

Is it because it's too long to read?

Come on man.

Troacctid

2016-06-10, 04:31 PM

But . . . one is about PC behavior and one is about DM behavior. Just that alone should distinguish them. Is it a level of acrimony? Because I think, on the whole, we've all been reasonably polite, friendly and . . . reasonable. Is it how strongly people stick to their guns? Everyone seems to have a least bent a bit. It almost seems like we're nearing a consensus. Even if we aren't I think we're all gaining a greater understanding of the issue.

Is it because it's too long to read?

Come on man.
Because a "When are paladins okay?" discussion begins with the inherent assumption that paladins are usually bad, but sometimes acceptable. I believe that assumption is faulty and unfair, and I think a thread with that title perpetuates negative stereotypes about paladins.

Similarly, this thread just starts with the assumption that DMPCs are bad, and I believe that assumption is faulty and unfair and perpetuates negative stereotypes.

Barstro

2016-06-10, 05:29 PM

Similarly, this thread just starts with the assumption that DMPCs are bad, and I believe that assumption is faulty and unfair and perpetuates negative stereotypes.

This thread started with the question of WHEN to use something. That actually is an assumption that there is a correct time to use them.

Most of the initial posts were citing occasions when they can be good, or giving specific instances of when they should be cautioned against.

"Don't eat Chinese food in the middle of mass on Easter Sunday" is not a statement against Chinese food, it is a warning of a poor choice of occasion. It's also a good example of hyperbole.

Honest Tiefling

2016-06-10, 05:34 PM

But . . . one is about PC behavior and one is about DM behavior.

Huh. I would have gone for the argument that both have about the same success rate, depending on which group you ask.

Hecuba

2016-06-10, 06:37 PM

This is just not how games work. I mean, it works that way in encounters (is that what you mean?), but not in games. For it to work this way the game would have to be a pure simulation. No game is this. People have tried, but no game is this. It would require that every character was created before the game started. A cast of millions. And there would have to be decision trees, and rules to resolve conflicts behind the scenes. This isn't how games go.

DMs create characters on the fly, or between sessions, to converge with where the characters are going. Their personalities serve a story purpose. Greg the dispondent bartender is not created so that the DM can simulate what a despondent guy would do, he's there so the PCs can see evidence of why the oppressive government is bad.

Generally, when the group I play with that does world-building builds a world that we'll use for more than a couple months, we'll certainly devote a lot of time to dealing with NPCs. We'll have decent backstories built for a few hundred of them, and general sketches for about that many. When a PC dies, it's not uncommon for us to adopt one of those NPCs as a new PC.

Why can't the despondent bartender just be flavor for the setting? As a general rule, I make a point to build out all my barkeeps/innkeepers. Assuming the PCs are going to go to the tavern/bar/whatever a couple times a week, it's safe to assume that the players are going to have in-character conversations with the barkeep a time or two a session. That seems like a good character to flesh out to me: aside from any concern about the character's importance to the plot, the pure amount of exposure it would risk straining immersion if I didn't. There are a lot of bartenders in the world - why shouldn't one be unhappy?

Growl the bear is there, not so the DM can take appropriate in-game actions, but because there has been too much talking today and the game needs to break out the tiles.
In which case he's a random encounter. I suppose he's a NPC in a technical sense, but I'd probably just refer to him as an MC entry instead.

Though, I suppose that if I took the time to name him Growl it might be worth thinking about finding a way to build him into the story.

Quertus

2016-06-10, 08:50 PM

Yeah, I did lump you in with a bunch of other recent posts that sort of agreed with you. I shouldn't have done that, but, in my defense, the posts were really long, and I picked you to quote because I thought it was the best written. Forgive me?

Of course. If there was anything to forgive, I'd forgive it, even without the flattery. :smallbiggrin:

So any specific points I made in the post you quoted that don't apply to you, you can just discard. Fair?
K

To address the specific points you made in this reply:

I concede that a (rotating) DMPC may be necessary when the DM also rotates. It isn't always necessary, but often it's unavoidable. So do it then if it's the only option.

I have . . . no opinion regarding conservation of the DMs headspace. That has never been an issue that I was even aware of. I just always imagined that the DMs headspace was 'enough.' I don't think it's a factor in the 'DMPC or not' debate.

Let me explain where DM headspace factors in. The post that I was responding to basically boiled down to, "DMs can't RP, therefore DMs shouldn't play dmpcs". "DMs can't RP" has approximately the same truth to it as, "players can't RP". Which is to say that, while there is quite a broad spectrum of abilities, no one is perfect. If even the best RP DM is inadequate to successfully RP a dmpc, and therefore shouldn't play them, it follows that players are inadequate to RP PCs, and therefore shouldn't play them. For obvious, selfish reasons, I'm going to argue against this train of thought, and claim that players can conceivably RP a PC adequately, DMs can conceivably RP a dmpc adequately, and the hobby should continue to exist. But, that post brought up a good point: a good warning sign of potential issues is if the DM cannot separate player(/DM) knowledge from character knowledge.

I (mis)took your statements about what the DM's job was (and wasn't) to be pointing out a potential flaw in my line of thought - the limitations on DM headspace / focus / attention / whatever you want to call it. Which is true - everything the DM does has an opportunity cost of things they could have done instead. Sorry if I went off on a seemingly unnecessary and unrelated tangent :smallredface:

To back up a step further... When should you run a dmpc? When it increases the overall fun of the game. What are some signs that I suggest? A rotating DM, where the party cares about consistency, is a good sign having a dmpc may increase overall happiness. A DM who has trouble separating player knowledge from character knowledge is a sign that a dmpc may reduce overall happiness. A DM's ability to delegate responsibilities to the players may also be an indicator of their ability to run a dmpc. When the DM wants to have a character, solely for the exploration minigame, that's probably going to end badly. When the DM wants a character for some of the minigames for which a dmpc is suited, that is a better sign that the DM will be satisfied. YMMV.

And you mention a lot of variant styles of play above, and they exist. I . . . don't really have an opinion about that apart from the fact that they're variant rules.

I'm concerned with the general experience, the only variant system that interests me today (in this thread) is 'should you use a DMPC.'

I mean, except the rotating thing. Sigh. I guess I'll comment on varients if people poke me enough. I'm so weak.:smallsmile:

As was mentioned in another thread (though not by me), not many games are "standard". They are all filled with house rules, they are all variants.

I read an article recently about how scientists around the world had been using copies of the exact same tumor to study cancer. Imagine how much further asking the research might be - how many lives might have been saved - if, all along, scientists had appreciated and studied a variety of cancers.

Starting by comparing to a simple baseline is good science. Not moving beyond that single comparison isn't.

So, I'm going to seem to contradict myself, by trying to use simple baselines, and trying to compare to anything and everything. But it's not a contradiction, it's just good science, honest!

My "baseline" dmpc is from a rotating DM. This is because it is, without doing the math, what I believe I have the most experience with, what I believe the most people will agree is or can qualify as a dmpc, and what I believe to be among the most accepted / acceptable of dmpcs. Starting from there, it is, IMO, likely to be easier to define traits of good (and bad?) dmpcs, and to start to answer the question of when to use a dmpc.

But, without a lengthy post dedicated to the idea that DMs can't RP, I may well have missed the important idea that the DM being able to RP is critical to a well-run dmpc, which in turn greatly increases the likelihood of said dmpc making the experience more fun for the participants than, say, the DM spending that time / headspace picking mood music instead.

Hecuba

2016-06-10, 11:44 PM

Chess is what is called a "perfect information" game, FYI.
I do agree with you, but I also think that we all suffer from (however subtle) unconscious biases. Something is going to sneak in at some point. It may not have a significant impact, but chances are it will happen.
I'm merely avoiding an absolutist stance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqz53d-fYL8), if you will.

Sorry, missed this post somehow. I'm certainly not trying to take an absolutist stance: we're all human and we all screw things up with our biases. There are certainly instances where DMPC is a bad idea, either because of the specifics of the campaign or because of the people involved.

If someone told me that they did not approve of DMPCs because they do not trust the DMs they deal with to maintain appropriate emotional distance from their PC, I would tell them to avoid actively DMPCs for as long as they hold that opinion.

That does not, however, make me see DMPCs as having inherent flaws. Instead, I merely see them as something requesting a more steady hand.

That said, this thread has at least convinced me that a DMPC fails short of the platonic ideal of a PC. I think all PCs will do so, but the conversation about the differing values of surprise and plot exploration have also convinced me that DMPCs are more prone to do so for certain elements of the ideal PC experience (for lack of a better term). Those particular elements don't seem to be ones that matter to me much, but if there matter to others more then it would constitute a good reason to avoid DM PCs a for them.

P.S. - Chess is, importantly, not just as perfect information game. It is also a complete information game (unless you nitpick the random selection of white and black at the start). That makes it arguably one of the worst games to use as an analogy for a RPG. Which is why I made the edit to that post.

Larrx

2016-06-12, 06:03 AM

As was mentioned in another thread (though not by me), not many games are "standard". They are all filled with house rules, they are all variants.

I disagree. I think most games are 'standard'. Here I am defining 'standard' to mean that there is a clear line drawn between the person that is running a game and the people that are playing it, and those groups have disparate responsibilities.

I can't prove this, but I think it's a reasonable thing to believe, and I'll try to present what evidence I have.

First, I would imagine house rules exist in every group (even Tippy uses them!, and if he's not the gold standard for RAW then I don't know who is. It's Curmudgeon. Curmudgeon might not use house rules). The thing is that most house rules change little things about realism, or class balance, or are-just-this-game ones to highlight setting. They don't disrupt the distinction between player and DM.

And we're all here. This site is home to some very bright people who have been playing for a very long time. Heck, the game this sub-forum in half-devoted to has been out of print for years. Many of us have experimented with all sorts of crazy stuff. What we are not is a representative example of what games people are playing.

And the games people out in the world are playing have rule books. Almost every example of printed rules for ttrpgs does draw a sharp demarcation between runner and player. Even the weird ones like Paranoia or Amber Diceless do. 3.5 absolutely does. So, yes, I do believe that there is a standard that we can all talk about. The one in the book.

That being said, it seems that you (and Hecuba) don't play those sorts of games very often. So if you (you!) have rotating DMs, or if you outsource world building (Hecuba!) to the group, or you have multiple DMs at once (this one's me!), than that might be a time to pull out the old DMPC.

So that's my revised answer, I guess. If the game you're in blurs the lines between PC and DM for some of the above reasons (prolly a couple of others) then knock yourself out.

If there is a single DM, than DMPCs are a no-no.

Guys, seriously I know this has been acrimonious at times, but I think we're narrowing in on an answer. This is pretty cool.

Edit: I missed a possessive :smallfrown:

The Insanity

2016-06-12, 06:17 AM

Running the game is also playing it.

Larrx

2016-06-12, 06:51 AM

Running the game is also playing it.

Why? Just that with no explanation?

Directing a movie is also acting in it, and I have no idea why no one saw me when they watched it.

Judging a court case is also being a defendant, which is why every federal judge is currently in prison.

Cooking a meal is also eating it, so I am no longer hungry.

Being a parent is also being a child. I've been grounded for the past month because I tried to stage Halloween candy consumption.

Fishing is also being a fish.

Squares are also circles.

I can do this all day. If you actually think that the two things are equivalent, than say why. I think it's an impossible case to make. Literally impossible.

"You reach a tee intersection, you can go right or left," someone (noone?) says. "which way do you go?"

Everyone looks around, lost.

Game ends.

The Insanity

2016-06-12, 07:19 AM

Because the DM is also a player.

Larrx

2016-06-12, 07:52 AM

Because the DM is also a player.

Nuh-uh.

It seems like I should end my post there. but at the risk of being as verbose as you, and God forbid actually making an argument, I guess I'll try to answer you.

The first six pages of this thread really dug into this. You should read them. It's a hoot. Even the pro-DMPC contingent, as represented at this point by, I believe, Hecuba has conceded that even in the most diffuse setting there is still a distinction between DM and PC.

If you disagree, then tell us why.

You are officially allowed to use more than seven words to make your case.

Barstro

2016-06-12, 09:49 AM

Directing a movie is also acting in it, (and other poor examples)

Both roles advance the story. I'd even argue that the director is more vital to the progression of the story, since the actors actually make no decisions.

But that doesn't change the fact that the original statement by The Insanity (IMO) was just wrong; DMs are very different from players. Players respond to the world while DMs tell the world what to do. Opposite sides of the same coin.

Larrx

2016-06-12, 10:25 AM

Both roles advance the story. I'd even argue that the director is more vital to the progression of the story, since the actors actually make no decisions.

But that doesn't change the fact that the original statement by The Insanity (IMO) was just wrong; DMs are very different from players. Players respond to the world while DMs tell the world what to do. Opposite sides of the same coin.

They were supposed to be poor examples :smallsmile:

I was attempting to highlight the fact that simply saying something like that and walking away was kind of ridiculous.

And I was probably being too snarky, that's not really like me. But come on, does it really make sense to come into this thread cold, with a seven word statement that ridiculous?

Not even the most strident proponents of the DMPC have tried to claim that DMs are PCs, always and unqualified.

We have different names for them for a reason, right?

Insanity's "argument" is, eponymously, crazy, yes?

Should I have just ignored it? Probably, right?

The Insanity

2016-06-12, 11:50 AM

One word for you: Dice.

Not even the most strident proponents of the DMPC have tried to claim that DMs are PCs, always and unqualified.
Neither did I.

But that doesn't change the fact that the original statement by The Insanity (IMO) was just wrong; DMs are very different from players. Players respond to the world while DMs tell the world what to do. Opposite sides of the same coin.
My definition of a player is someone who participates in the game.

Hecuba

2016-06-12, 11:56 AM

That being said, it seems that you (and Hecuba) don't play those sorts of games very often. So if you (you!) have rotating DMs, or if you outsource world building (Hecuba!) to the group, or you have multiple DMs at once (this one's me!), than that might be a time to pull out the old DMPC.

It seems strange to me to think of any of those items as of. Firm my perspective, they are just things that many groups I've played with have been doing since AD&D days to make sure that the game can keep going.

If you don't rotate and the DM is out, does the game not happen that week?
If only one person knows the details of the setting or the campaign, then when they are out the best case scenario is that you can use their notes like railroad tracks.

That said, you do make a good point: world building does tend to be listed in DM resources rather than player resources. And, while I could take an additional player at the table after initial design, rotating DM duties to would be more difficult for that campaign.

That brings me to another realization: there are a couple tables where I prefer to play published modules. I trust them to run the game provided, but I don't trust everyone that plays at the table to world build well or know how to modify the setting on the fly. I'd never thought of it in terms of not trusting them to DM - I generally think of that in terms of "the person running the session this week" - but if you consider those DM duties then I guess I don't. That makes me sad.

kyoryu

2016-06-12, 01:46 PM

Because the DM is also a player.

In the larger sense of "everyone is playing the game", yes.

However the "players" and "GM" are separate, distinct roles at the table.

Both actors and directors have different roles in a movie. They're both involved in production, but they have distinct roles.

The only way you can argue that is by studiously ignoring the difference between "player" in the general sense (someone involved in the game) and "player" as the defined role (someone in control of a player character, that does not typically have any world authority, etc.).

Florian

2016-06-12, 03:34 PM

kyoryu

2016-06-12, 05:00 PM

martixy

2016-06-12, 11:29 PM

That does not, however, make me see DMPCs as having inherent flaws. Instead, I merely see them as something requesting a more steady hand.
My thoughts precisely.

That said, this thread has at least convinced me that a DMPC fails short of the platonic ideal of a PC. I think all PCs will do so, but the conversation about the differing values of surprise and plot exploration have also convinced me that DMPCs are more prone to do so for certain elements of the ideal PC experience (for lack of a better term). Those particular elements don't seem to be ones that matter to me much, but if there matter to others more then it would constitute a good reason to avoid DM PCs a for them.
That's the notion of a game's aesthetic. It's a very useful way of looking at games, that not many people are aware of. I'm glad we're successfully spreading the word. :smallbiggrin:

Guys, seriously I know this has been acrimonious at times, but I think we're narrowing in on an answer. This is pretty cool.
I think we've already arrived at the answer, just not in the form you might be expecting to see.

Right now all I see are you guys arguing semantics - what is "playing", what is "standard".
You are debating language instead of the substance the language is supposed to convey, which is why you are currently getting nowhere.

I think one of the most interesting things that has come up in this discussion so far is the assumption that "discovering the unknown" is a core element of what could be considered "standard" game and a GM can´t participate in the same level as the players because everything is known to him.
It is not a core element of the game itself(standard or notwhatever that means), it is merely a possible core motivation for a person to participate in the game. One among many. One others may not consider as "core".

As I mentioned before, DMG2's section on player motivation is a very illuminating read, both from player and DM perspective. And setting exploration is only 1 out of like a dozen different motivations a player might possess(this includes the DM, when acting as a player as well).
Out of that dozen, only about 2 are largely incompatible with DMing - exploration and puzzles, due to foreknowledge.

weckar

2016-06-13, 07:02 AM

Larrx

2016-06-13, 07:30 AM

Larrx, I would very much like to request you stop confusing the terms 'PC' and 'Player'. They are separate entities with different roles. The player is a person, usually around a gaming table. The PC is a fictional character controlled by the player, and usually has vital statistics vastly different from said player.

Yeah, I've made that mistake a couple of times. It is an honest mistake, not an attempt to make a point or anything. It just comes from how I talk with the people at my table, we get a little lazy with language precision, and it has become sort of a habit. But it's still lazy and wrong. Thanks for reminding me.

Larrx

2016-06-13, 07:38 AM

I think one of the most interesting things that has come up in this discussion so far is the assumption that "discovering the unknown" is a core element of what could be considered "standard" game and a GM can´t participate in the same level as the players because everything is known to him.

This assumption can only stand when the players take a completely passive stance and tackle whatever the GM throws at them, like playing an Adventure Path. Then yes, the GM has complete knowledge about the game as everything is already set and decided.

Going from there, I think the more narrative control or actual creative control the players have, the more the role of the GM changes along with their actual knowledge of what happens in the game.

I think games like Ars Magicka showcase what it means when everyone is GM an all things resolve around player-created plots.

You bring up a good point. Yes, both DM and player experience surprise during sessions. The experiences are distinct however.

The player is presented with a situation, concocts a strategy, and there is uncertainty. Will they succeed? Did they make the best choice?

The DM is presented with an action. They have to scramble because they had no idea the players would do that. What happens?

They're emotionally distinct experiences.

Larrx

2016-06-13, 07:59 AM

I think we've already arrived at the answer, just not in the form you might be expecting to see.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you think that this thread has arrived at a consensus answer, and I've misidentified it? What do you think the answer is?

Do you think that there can never be a consensus?

Do you think that one side had it right all along and the other is just tilting at windmills? Which side?

Right now all I see are you guys arguing semantics - what is "playing", what is "standard".
You are debating language instead of the substance the language is supposed to convey, which is why you are currently getting nowhere.

The thing is, I don't think we're getting nowhere. My understanding of the issue has deepened. My opinion has changed. I've broadened my opinion on when a DMPC is appropriate.

I feel, without hazarding to speak for them, that a number of posters on both sides have changed stances as well, even if only slightly

And the people who are simply reading the thread, or those who might dig it out of some archive it the future might find value in the discussion.

The idea that we're simply spinning our wheels, argueing words and not truths, is . . . kinda the most insulting thing anyone has said to me in this thread. And someone accused me of only holding my opinions because I was thirteen.

A certain amount of definition parsing is unavoidable in this discussion, right? The very acronym demands it. It's not off topic. The 'playing' stuff ties into what it means to be a player, and whether or not a DM can ever be that. The 'standard' stuff helps to tease out that fact that when DM responsibilities are spread throughout the group, DMPCs may be appropriate.

We're making progress.

Why do you dismiss that. Or why do you think that we're not?

Florian

2016-06-13, 08:12 AM

Larrx

2016-06-13, 08:48 AM

That´s why I pointed out systems where everyone is GM and the thing I dubbed as "traditional", being based on the model laid out by D&D, simply is nonexistent. A big part of it is shifting between stances (like "Author Stance") between the participating players, which, amongst other things, mean that the "player types" as defined in DMG2 don´t matter here as a top-level issue. It´s a markedly different experience than what many people are used to from playing regular D&D and rather is akin to collaborative storytelling.

To explain that with Ars Magicka:

In this system, you collaborate to create a "covenant" and it´s inhabitants. This is the main setting for the game and it´s entirely player-driven. Each player then creates his Magus and hard-wires aims and goals into the build. That is his personal character that only he can touch and the aims and goals are what the game is all about. Then, you create a caste of important characters that are assigned to each player, but where narrative control can always be assumed by another player. from then on out you generate the normal folks that inhabit that setting and they´re free to use by everyone.

So generally, you take turns at one player announcing what his personal Magus is wanting to do and all other players are going into GM mode, playing the support cast to that story as DMPC and creating the whole adventure on the fly based on the flag raised by aims and goals.

So, overall, everybody knows everything about the whole setting and all secrets involved are laid out pretty clear. And it´s still very involved play as you enter the unknown together.

I've played Ars Magica (I loved that thing, I forgot what it's called, where you had a strong back story emotion that could make you succeed more often when you felt that emotion. That was cool. The schools of magic were pretty great too). But that's one game that, as far as I know, hasn't been in print since the '90s.

All of the big games: D&D, V:tM, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, and . . . well, honestly a bunch of newer games that are probably great that I never ran do draw a hard line between runner and player. And I've heard of those games. I still live in a space where rpg opinions fly by me. And the conversation has been about dice systems or class systems. No one has said to me that "this new game is great, because there isn't a DM!" I've never heard anyone say that.

The traditional model laid out by D&D (the most well known and most played rpg ever), is not simply existent. It is the industry standard. Not to mention that this is a D&D forum, so the things they print in their rulebooks might be relevant to the conversation.

Further, what are we fighting about?

I've already surrendered on one front. If your game doesn't have a DM than use DMPCs willy nilly. Despite anecdotal evidence, most games do have a DM. Are you seriously trying to argue that they don't?

Is that your stance? That, regardless of the rules, all gamers discard the idea of a DM out of hand? That's just . . . not the case.

And tables where there is a DM (I swear, it's, like, all of them) would not benefit from a DMPC.

weckar

2016-06-13, 10:02 AM

Is there any chance we could gather up all useful definitions, agreed upon or multiple choice, in a single post? It would save a lot of backscavving through the thread.

Barstro

2016-06-13, 10:06 AM

Is there any chance we could gather up all useful definitions, agreed upon or multiple choice, in a single post? It would save a lot of backscavving through the thread.

Doubtful. We'd argue over which ones were "useful", and then fight over the definition of "useful".

EDIT: At least Larrx-the-thirteen-year-old (LtTYO) would. :smalltongue:

Back on point; I agree with Larrx. There has been a lot of good discussion and while there will not be a consensus as to what, exactly, a DMPC is or when it could/should be used, my knowledge has increased due to this thread. Thank you, Lieutenant Tyo.

Calemyr

2016-06-13, 11:27 AM

I've only been a DM for a few years now, but I've found my players don't want me to run a game without at least one DMPC, despite the fact that the group size is usually too large to require one (literally, I've tried to kill them off, and the players fight like hell to keep them in the party). These are the reasons I think they like the ones I use:

1) They're not domineering - The DMPCs, even when they're bombastic and domineering in character, are not domineering in play. The Tananim Dragon Aerokineticist that claims the party as his minions and acts like he's in charge doesn't actually dictate much of anything - he lets the party decide the agenda and do the talking, taking pride in the capability of the people he "leads". The elven witch is shy and doesn't speak up unless everyone else is stymied. A DMPC should not dictate play, they should be there to fill in the gaps for the party.

2) They're entertaining - When tension needs a break, or the party's playful banter needs just that extra layer of comedy, a DMPC can be useful. The elven witch, despite her shy nature, used illusion magic to accentuate scenes, such as a roaring audience during a good-natured duel or reproducing comically one-sided fights the party had already gotten into, along with play-by-play commentary. The dragon's arrogance goes from annoying to endearing because he clearly cares for his "minions" and completely misses the fact that they're just humoring him (and that he's in fact working for them).

3) They're helpful, but not too helpful - When the party doesn't have an acceptable solution to a problem, and are clearly getting frustrated by that fact, the DMPC is there to throw them a bone. Can't figure out how to stop a burning warehouse from destroying a large chunk of the city's food supply? In comes the dragon to put out the fires (and make quite a mess) with wind powers. Enemy coming down the hall when the party isn't equipped to hide? The witch throws up an illusory wall to give the party time. The witch's rather backwards application of the Scar hex also allows her to provide remote support and coordination, allowing the party to work together even when separated without taking over.

4) Plot-based, not plot-centric - The DMPC adds to the plot, but does not dictate it. A source of information, a skill or asset that opens new avenues to the party, or simply a reason to care beyond the DM saying "the world is screwed if you don't". The scenario is winnable if the DMPC gets killed, and the story remains consistent and engaging. They may be vital to optional, perhaps even epic, side-plots, but the game should never die with a DMPC.

5) The players can win - DMPCs aren't perfect, and the players can enjoy getting one over on them. The witch, a powerful healer and illusionist and possibly a semi-divine psychopomp, is repeatedly relegated to the role of coffee barista because she made some one time in a lighthearted session. Her quiet sighs of resigned frustration and yet complete lack of argument over the role amused the players immensely. The dragon, despite being cunning and charismatic, gets played constantly by the party, who use pragmatism and logic to persuade him into helping them on their personal objectives rather than his often talked about (yet never pursued) plans for world conquest.

Making a "good" DMPC isn't that difficult, I feel. Just don't put them center stage. The players are the heroes, after all. Let them be the ones that decide things, let them be the ones who hold the fate of the world the kingdom themselves whatever in the palm of their hands. A DMPC is there to support, supplement, and give context when the players need it, without stealing their thunder or agency.

Florian

2016-06-13, 11:55 AM

Larrx

2016-06-13, 12:11 PM

Doubtful. We'd argue over which ones were "useful", and then fight over the definition of "useful".

EDIT: At least Larrx-the-thirteen-year-old (LtTYO) would. :smalltongue:

Back on point; I agree with Larrx. There has been a lot of good discussion and while there will not be a consensus as to what, exactly, a DMPC is or when it could/should be used, my knowledge has increased due to this thread. Thank you, Lieutenant Tyo.

Let's try anyway, just for fun!

There is the not so silent majority, like Calemyr above, who define DMPCs by what they are not. "They're not domineering." "They're helpful, but not too helpful." "Just don't put them center stage." The problem here is that this description is of an NPC with special restrictions. The danger of pushing the PCs out of the protagonist role is noted, and cautions are suggested. So what is the benefit? Why do you need a DMPC specifically to meet the goals of the story? How is this DMPC distinct from any other NPC that travels with the Party? Like the wizards familiar perhaps?

There are those who believe that running a game and playing in the same game is possible, and it's only fair to let the DM play too. I don't think this is possible.

There are people who play games where it's hard to pin down who exactly the DM is, and in these cases, I agree that DMPCs are just a fact of life.

I don't think I missed any?

1) DMPCs are like lit dynamite. They might destroy your game, but if you're really careful, you should be okay.

2) DMPCs are exactly PCs, the DM should have a chance to play too.

3) DMPCs are a necessary tool to transition between DM and DM when the game has multiple referees and creators.

I think that's all of them, is that helpful?

Larrx

2016-06-13, 12:25 PM

@Larrx:

AM actually finished 5th edition last year and the author said they´re unable to contribute more to that game right now.

For the rest, I think you´re making the usual error and don´t look at the overall big picture. D&D/PF is not top dog outside the U.S. of A., often not even coming close to being relevant at all. Other cultures have taken the concept provided by the game back then, and adapted them to fit their traditions.

So "we" argue about nothing, I´m just quietly amused by the ignorance that sometimes happens in this hobby and is very much based on home country and culture.

So ultimately, I just say that more people play the game very different from what you know and that´s a thing everyone in this discussion should at least acknowledge before going all dogma-like at it.

Okay, first . . . it's really cool that Ars Magica is still going strong, that game was cool.

And . . . I have acknowledged that some people play the game differently. In almost every post in the last three pages. I do not believe in the statement, "everybody plays the game in their own unique way and discussion of how games are played is thus useless and comical."

There is common ground.

I also don't think that assuming some people play the game the way the book tells them to play it is ignorant. This is a D&D forum, we are discussing D&D, and the rules for how to play D&D are relevant. D&D tells its readers that DMs and PCs are different things.

Is it possible that a group plays D&D, but instead of dragons, they use space marines, and instead of d20s they play rock paper scissors? Of course. Heck, I've done exactly that.

But the conversation has to have some common ground, so we talk about the game as it is.

It's not ignorant. And telling me that I'm uneducated and funny to watch (like a monkey in the zoo! Awww, he thinks he's people!), is kind of obnoxious.

Barstro

2016-06-13, 02:08 PM

It's not ignorant. And telling me that I'm uneducated and funny to watch (like a monkey in the zoo! Awww, he thinks he's people!), is kind of obnoxious.

Let's be fair here; you were called "ignorant"*. That is a word I use to describe people as well, but it is not necessarily derogatory. It only means that a person lacks specific information. Florian is from Berlin and may be using words that translate correctly but some of the nuances are lost.

Quite frankly, I consider "ignorant" to be a rather positive term since that at least suggests that once I HAVE that knowledge, I'll be able to come to the correct conclusion. It's the foolish people who have all the information but still come to the incorrect conclusion. They are much harder to teach.

I am ignorant in regards to the game Go. No idea what the rules really are.
I am foolish in chess. I know all the rules but still cannot figure out how to force a mate with two bishops.

And, yes, ignorant people are amusing to watch. I've provided countless hours of entertainment to my cousin's children due to my lack of knowledge about current cartoons.

EDIT: * heck, you weren't even called ignorant. Florian simply stated that he is amused by some of the ignorance that is inherent in these types of discussions about then when certain things are acceptable, since different cultures can have drastically different views (assuming that I am paraphrasing correctly). He could have been talking about me (have you seen some of the crap I write?)

martixy

2016-06-13, 08:30 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you think that this thread has arrived at a consensus answer, and I've misidentified it? What do you think the answer is?

Do you think that there can never be a consensus?

Do you think that one side had it right all along and the other is just tilting at windmills? Which side?

I believe at least some of us arrived at the following answer:

It is highly dependent on the participants involved, and what they expect to get out of the game(including the DM himself). We discussed which personal motivations might be well or ill-suited in combination with a DMPC.
It requires a certain skill at playing and display of character virtue of the DM who wishes to play a PC, such that the potential pitfalls of a high degree of foreknowledge and authority possessed by one of the players does not interfere with the other's enjoyment of the game.
It is dependent on the format of the game. At the very least it is unavoidable in the case of a rotating DM. However, past that a group may have a rotating DM of various degrees of authority. Just as the game is broken up in 2 parts - role play and systems interactions, so can a DMs duties be broken up similarly - as a rules arbiter and creative director. A rotating DM may have license to one, or both of these duties, each of which requires its own separate skillset.

The thing is, I don't think we're getting nowhere. My understanding of the issue has deepened. My opinion has changed. I've broadened my opinion on when a DMPC is appropriate.

I feel, without hazarding to speak for them, that a number of posters on both sides have changed stances as well, even if only slightly

And the people who are simply reading the thread, or those who might dig it out of some archive it the future might find value in the discussion.

The idea that we're simply spinning our wheels, argueing words and not truths, is . . . kinda the most insulting thing anyone has said to me in this thread. And someone accused me of only holding my opinions because I was thirteen.

A certain amount of definition parsing is unavoidable in this discussion, right? The very acronym demands it. It's not off topic. The 'playing' stuff ties into what it means to be a player, and whether or not a DM can ever be that. The 'standard' stuff helps to tease out that fact that when DM responsibilities are spread throughout the group, DMPCs may be appropriate.

We're making progress.

Why do you dismiss that. Or why do you think that we're not?

I apologize if I have offended you, it was very much not an intention of mine, just an observation from the fact that discussion continues, after the definitive answer(IMO) has been found.

Larrx

2016-06-14, 10:00 AM

Let's be fair here; you were called "ignorant"*. That is a word I use to describe people as well, but it is not necessarily derogatory. It only means that a person lacks specific information. Florian is from Berlin and may be using words that translate correctly but some of the nuances are lost.

Quite frankly, I consider "ignorant" to be a rather positive term since that at least suggests that once I HAVE that knowledge, I'll be able to come to the correct conclusion. It's the foolish people who have all the information but still come to the incorrect conclusion. They are much harder to teach.

I am ignorant in regards to the game Go. No idea what the rules really are.
I am foolish in chess. I know all the rules but still cannot figure out how to force a mate with two bishops.

And, yes, ignorant people are amusing to watch. I've provided countless hours of entertainment to my cousin's children due to my lack of knowledge about current cartoons.

EDIT: * heck, you weren't even called ignorant. Florian simply stated that he is amused by some of the ignorance that is inherent in these types of discussions about then certain things are acceptable, since different cultures can have drastically different views (assuming that I am paraphrasing correctly). He could have been talking about me (have you seen some of the crap I write?)

Fair enough. And I apologize to Florian. I kinda knew right after posting that that I was overreacting.

:smallfrown:

Larrx

2016-06-14, 10:13 AM

I believe at least some of us arrived at the following answer:

It is highly dependent on the participants involved, and what they expect to get out of the game(including the DM himself). We discussed which personal motivations might be well or ill-suited in combination with a DMPC.
It requires a certain skill at playing and display of character virtue of the DM who wishes to play a PC, such that the potential pitfalls of a high degree of foreknowledge and authority possessed by one of the players does not interfere with the other's enjoyment of the game.
It is dependent on the format of the game. At the very least it is unavoidable in the case of a rotating DM. However, past that a group may have a rotating DM of various degrees of authority. Just as the game is broken up in 2 parts - role play and systems interactions, so can a DMs duties be broken up similarly - as a rules arbiter and creative director. A rotating DM may have license to one, or both of these duties, each of which requires its own separate skillset.

This seems right. Well organized, representative of the speakers who've spoken. Honest. I disagree with point one, but I can't claim that some smart people haven't claimed that, it deserves to be included.

I apologize if I have offended you, it was very much not an intention of mine, just an observation from the fact that discussion continues, after the definitive answer(IMO) has been found.

This is where I got a little hurt. Sorry for lashing out, it looks like I was in a super bad mood yesterday. Anyway, in regards to your point three, I, at the very least, have had my opinions deepened, loosened, and nuanced recently. Even past the point where you had judged that the argument had solidified. I'm still getting things out of this. I haven't found a definitive answer yet, although I think I'm close.

Florian

2016-06-14, 11:29 AM

Fair enough. And I apologize to Florian. I kinda knew right after posting that that I was overreacting.

:smallfrown:

Fair enough and no harm done. I´m posting here on my way to or from work, so I´m mostly in a foul mood myself and can accept when others feel equal.

Hecuba

2016-06-14, 12:14 PM

Quite frankly, I consider "ignorant" to be a rather positive term since that at least suggests that once I HAVE that knowledge, I'll be able to come to the correct conclusion.

"Ignorant" is probably a good word to avoid in online conversations: it has light slur-like connotations in the vernacular English of many regions.

Barstro

2016-06-14, 01:30 PM

"Ignorant" is probably a good word to avoid in online conversations: it has light slur-like connotations in the vernacular English of many regions.

Only by people who are too ignorant to know the actual definition, or too obtuse to give up their own kneejerk reactions despite knowing the actual definition. :smallwink:

But, this entire line of discussion seems to dwelt on the perceptions and opinions of localized groups. That's an original definition of "ghetto", but I refrain from using that word so as not to offend. (unsure what the correct face would be to denote my mild sarcasm and intent to humor but not offend)

Calemyr

2016-06-22, 05:11 PM

Let's try anyway, just for fun!

There is the not so silent majority, like Calemyr above, who define DMPCs by what they are not. "They're not domineering." "They're helpful, but not too helpful." "Just don't put them center stage." The problem here is that this description is of an NPC with special restrictions. The danger of pushing the PCs out of the protagonist role is noted, and cautions are suggested. So what is the benefit? Why do you need a DMPC specifically to meet the goals of the story? How is this DMPC distinct from any other NPC that travels with the Party? Like the wizards familiar perhaps?

There are those who believe that running a game and playing in the same game is possible, and it's only fair to let the DM play too. I don't think this is possible.

There are people who play games where it's hard to pin down who exactly the DM is, and in these cases, I agree that DMPCs are just a fact of life.

I don't think I missed any?

1) DMPCs are like lit dynamite. They might destroy your game, but if you're really careful, you should be okay.

2) DMPCs are exactly PCs, the DM should have a chance to play too.

3) DMPCs are a necessary tool to transition between DM and DM when the game has multiple referees and creators.

I think that's all of them, is that helpful?

Comparing DMPCs to lit dynamite isn't too far off. They're powerful tools that can be horribly destructive if not handled properly. A DM cannot simply play the game, because they know too much and can bend the world around their creation's whims. Without restraint on the DM's part, DMPCs can easily wield more influence than the actual player characters, and that's no good. When your players don't have agency, they don't have any reason to care. However, a DMPC can easily set the tone and bring a personal context to conflict, and can be vital to making the players care if handled correctly. A DMPC has a lot more value than a villain or an NPC because they're more closely and consistently tied to the party, giving the players more time to grow attached to them and care about their side of the story, and if you have the players by the heartstrings, you can really have an impact on them.

I personally define them as "PCs with restrictions" because I feel that's how they should be played. They shouldn't be more powerful than the party, or butt in on the players' fun, but rather provide an additional voice and perspective on things. A DM can certainly play alongside their players, they just can't act like players. They're DMs, and with that kind of power comes the responsibility to handle it properly.