PDA

View Full Version : The DMPC, or Don't Mess Party Cameratime



whisperwind1
2016-07-17, 03:55 PM
I've been in games for a few years now, and a trend i've noticed with my group is that they really like to bring NPCs along with them, not mooks or hirelings, but actual story important, fully fleshed-out supporting characters. This happens regularly and almost anytime there is a combat, the party has one or two NPCs to help them out. The funny thing is some of the players occasionally complain about the NPCs they bring being given too much importance or winning a combat for the party. I definitely understand the point. I'm personally am opposed to the idea of bringing in NPCs into combats and with having DMPCs as part of the "main characters" in a story.

In my experience, its very hard for the DM to play a DMPC as just another member of the group, because they're played by the DM and enjoy a greater level of "protection". I'm not saying every DM is like this of course, but all the ones I know tend to have DMPCs who either make that crucial roll to finish off the boss, save against the really strong effect, and generally acquit themselves better than the PCs. As a result it feels like the DMPC enjoys special favor or is "never going to die" because they are the DM's avatar, and ultimately the DM can decree any outcome for them because they aren't obliged to roll out in the open like the players.

This gets more annoying when, in my experience again, the DMPC essentially suggests what should occur next or the DM expects his NPC to be just as valuable to the story as the PCs. Like when the party wants to do something and the DMPC chimes in saying that maybe you guys should do this other thing instead, trust me I have a gut feeling. The ultimate result is that players feel supervised, that "their story" is being co-opted or dictated by an NPC. Again i've had DMs swear up and down that this is not their case and that their NPCs are just there to help out, but sometimes you can tell when the DMPC just saved the party or moved the plot along.

All this to say that I don't believe DMPCs should be used in a game, or at the very least, they should not be in a combat. I mentioned several reasons why I think this (impression of railroading, easy mode encounters etc), but the most important one is taking away from the PCs. Any RPG should rightfully be about the Player Characters, the triumphs should be their own, the momentous decisions or big scenes should be theirs. If an NPC is there to win fights, shepherd them or worst of all, Convince other NPCs to do something without needing the PCs, that steals the spotlight. I'm not saying that NPCs can't be prominent or valued members of a cast or story, but they should not take the PCs place as primary decision makers or heroes in the story.

I'd love to hear you guys' opinions on the matter. Do you agree or disagree and if so why?

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-17, 05:51 PM
Running games, I have been stuck in a bad spot a few times by players who insist on doing whatever it takes to drag in powerful NPCs, and then having to make sure that those NPCs don't hog the spotlight while at the same time not making them "cutscene awesome, combat useless". It's a hell of a tightrope act.

unwise
2016-07-17, 06:02 PM
I can't say that I have ever really been guilty of making an NPC too much of a hero. My players actually complain that my NPCs all seem to be mentally ill and that is a very valid critique.

I have been guilty of using NPCs to lead the PCs around, but I find two main ways to overcome that:

1) All of my NPCs are at best quirky and at worst insane. So the paranoid guy will always suggest sneaking around, regardless of whether that is the best course of action. The proud barbarian will always say "they don't look so tough, we can take them" and suggest a frontal assault. A druid in the current campaign always suggests a wait and see approach, he is patient to a fault. The PCs took his advice, thinking it was DM-advice, and a whole lot of bad stuff happened to the village they wanted to rescue. At least they learnt something.

2) In small campaigns, I often have two NPCs, I just make sure that they never see eye-to-eye. If I want one to give good advice I can do that, since the other one will disagree vehemently, so the PCs still have a choice to make and do not feel that the DM is leading them around.

Here are a few tips I use for NPCs in general:

1) If they are great at something, it is something other PCs can't do.

2) Their abilities are very well defined, I never have a wizard, as if you suddenly pull out invisibility when the party needs it, then it feels like a Deus Ex Machina. Instead, I have an Aquamancer who can only cast spells related to water, or a Geomancer, or Mentalist, who can only cast spells in similar narrow scopes. In this way, the PCs know exactly what to expect from the NPC. Within their narrow scope they are amazing at what they do, morphing spells on the fly to meet requirements, if the PCs come up with any plan involving water and magic, the Aquamancer can do it.

3) They are straight up worse at the areas of overlap with PCs core abilities. The DM Paladin is new to the faith, he is an old veteran who is good in a fight, but does not have enough faith to power up his lay on hands or protective aura properly. The young town guard is a Battlemaster, but is a noob, so whenever he fails at an manauver, he fumbles and leaves himself open. He tries lots of tricky stuff, but half the time he might disarm himself rather than the enemy.

4) They have psychological limitations which prevent them from being a good guide for the PC. The elf is so arrogant he can't see clear threats, the young cleric is naive, the brash pirate is impulsive etc. Something that would make the PCs stupid to put their entire plan in that person hands. Their is a reason this person is not the leader of the group.

5) DMPCs are the currency of failure. They are the step down from killing a PC. If you don't want a TPK but their needs to be some consequences for stupidity or bad luck, or if you need to display a BBEGs power and evil, it is a DMPCs time to die.

6) If you have two of them, then it is best that they don't get along at all. Having a duo that work together join the party is nowhere near as interesting as having two opposites. This feeds into the points above about DM guidance.

7) At least one NPC is reluctant to be there or is quiet humble, thinking the PCs are the real heroes. This means that they will run to deliver messages so that PCs can keep doing their adventure. They will guard the horses while the PCs storm the castle. They can be used for all those times when the party would be wise to split, but does not do so to keep the game running.

whisperwind1
2016-07-17, 06:12 PM
Running games, I have been stuck in a bad spot a few times by players who insist on doing whatever it takes to drag in powerful NPCs, and then having to make sure that those NPCs don't hog the spotlight while at the same time not making them "cutscene awesome, combat useless". It's a hell of a tightrope act.

Whenever I have NPCs in combat with the party, I hand a player their stats and go "Here, you deal with him". That way I can't be accused of anything. Also I find other DMs I know are very keen to have the NPC be a valued member of the group, whose vote or voice should carry as much weight as that of a PC. That's nonsense IMO, even if they are a fascinating character, they're still just a supporting cast.

Draconi Redfir
2016-07-17, 07:05 PM
I played a DMPC once. One of the members of the party had a giant lizard as a mount of some kind, and eventually decided he wanted to awaken him for one reason or another. i already planned for the group to meet a powerful druid as part of the plot, so i figured i could go through with it. threw in a free "anthropomorphizing" as well to make it stand on two legs and have functioning arms.

Since it was large size though, it had a considerable strength score, and eventually took up a pseudo role of the party tank, (fitting too as the party didn't have one of their own.) As i didn't want the player to have too much power with this new awakened anthropomorphic large-sized lizard, i took it over as a DMPC, with a few restrictions.

The lizard could not talk, as it didn't have humanoid vocal chords
it took awhile for it to learn how to walk on two legs, requiring a crutch to act as a temporary "third leg" for it to lean on for a time
When in cold temperatures (which was a fair amount) it took penalties due to being cold blooded
And story-wise it would not participate unless specifically requested by the players.
And due to things like level adjustment and officially starting with zero experiance, the lizard was four or five levels lower then the rest of the party.

Basically i was playing a giant, mute tank, I’d occasionally use him to gimp the players slightly, such as the time they fought a pair of mammoths and began collecting their tusks to sell for ivory. The lizard claimed one of the tusks as his own and began using it as a makeshift club for awhile. He eventually got a sword of his own, but it was non-magical and much too large and heavy for any of the party to carry or wield on their own.

A majority of the guy's actions were voted on by the players, i still had a lot of fun playing him though.

Eventually however my time as DM came to a close and i had to hand over the reigns to annother DM, they weren't a fan of the giant lizard however, so i set up a scenario where a building collapsed on the party, knocked out the PC's, and they only briefly came too as they were being rescued from the falling rubble by other NPC's to see the large-sized reptile holding a large chunk of collapsing ceiling off the ground, keeping it up to prevent the PC's from getting squashed. And then once they were clear, the building collapsed entirely, leaving an ambiguous death for the lizard.

I was hoping he might return at some point later on, but unfortunately the game fell to a stop as the primary DM had to move away, so that's a shame. Was still fun to play with, and the PC's seemed to like him as well, i think part of the reason was both because they knew him before he was awakened, and because they were directly responsible for his awakening.

Fun fact: The thing screamed for a solid hour after awakening until the sorceress calmed it down. Seems suddenly gaining sentience and the capability to understand life, death, the universe, and advanced mathamatics can be quite the shock:smallwink: (Note; He did not actually understand those things right off the bat, he had to learn. he just rolled really well for his intelligence score.)

DMPC's CAN be done well is what i'm saying here, and I’d like to think i did it well.

Blue Duke
2016-07-17, 07:09 PM
the one time I've given a group a regular DMPC it was a comic relief bot who was their ships butler, any time he was in combat it was always off screen and i'd have him call the groups leader and ask if he was expected to clean up all the damage he had to cause....i think they liked him and he managed to not steal the show.

Vitruviansquid
2016-07-17, 07:13 PM
I would just find some way to put the DMPC in the "combat" but not in the actual "Combat." He is to be nebulously described as being occupied by the enemy while not being represented on the actual mat.

For example, if your players insist on bringing along a powerful NPC to a fight, I'll say the powerful NOC is handling some number of the enemy somewhere to the side, then start putting down the monsters for the side that the PCs are responsible for.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-17, 07:42 PM
I'm a fan of NPCs constantly giving bad advice that screws over the party when they take it as DM-advice. It's kind of a guilty pleasure, though.

goto124
2016-07-17, 07:48 PM
The PCs took his advice, thinking it was DM-advice, and a whole lot of bad stuff happened to the village they wanted to rescue. At least they learnt something.


I'm a fan of NPCs constantly giving bad advice that screws over the party when they take it as DM-advice. It's kind of a guilty pleasure, though.

I've left games over this sort of thing. I put all my trust in the GM, to make sure I don't mess up games that the GM clearly has put so much effort into. I don't want it twisted.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-17, 07:49 PM
I've left games over this sort of thing. I put all my trust in the GM, I don't want it twisted.

But the GM isn't telling you something. The NPC is telling you something. It's sort of the GM's job to populate the world with actual people with their own personalities and opinions instead of just mouthpieces for the GM.

If the *GM* is the one lying to you then it's certainly a breech of trust, though.

goto124
2016-07-17, 07:54 PM
And once again, in my efforts to be a good player, I end up being the bad player. Or maybe I suck at this RP thing.

Thrudd
2016-07-17, 08:38 PM
I don't recognize the existence of the "DMPC". There are NPCs, who might sometimes accompany the party. In no case should the DM see an NPC as "their" character. They are a person in the world, who should react according to the rules of that world and not according to the DM's omniscient metagame knowledge. In my opinion, NPCs of equivalent ability to the PC's should only be occasional and temporary party members. Significantly lower power NPC's (at least two or three levels lower) can be hired or recruited as henchmen. All NPCs should be subject to the rules of morale and social reactions so that the DM is not exclusively controlling them, but allowing the NPCs to react organically to the world.
Don't have campaigns centered around stuff that NPCs are doing with other NPCs, while the PCs look on and accompany them here and there. That is just not a good format, the players are meant to be the primary movers and decision makers in the game. Figure out a way to set up your campaign so the players activities are central and NPC's occupy peripheral roles.

Zman
2016-07-17, 09:40 PM
I run a DMPC in my current IRL game, he operates by all the he rules of the PCs. All his roles are above board and in the open. When it comes to decision making, he will give his opinions, which I am very adamant is not my DM advice, as he is brash and fancies himself invincible they often disregard his advice. He most certainly is not invincible, as a Fighter1/Sorcerer5 he self buffs and runs around unarmored tossing out Booming Blades. In fact in the first round of the major fight last week he quickened a Haste and ran to distract some Minotaurs promptly eating a 4d12+4 Crit and almost losing Concentration. The actions were total in character, all rolls were above board, and the character is mortal.

Why do I have a DMPC? We needed another party member when the campaign started and it was a character I had wanted to run, but frankly DMs suck and I have to run the world.

How do I do it? Compartmentalization of my thinking, in a very similar way that I run my living world. I consider the information "my" character has available and have them act accordingly. One tool I use is threat assessment, i.e. Who has threatened this creature the most, who has pissed them off, etc. if it is close, and especially if "my" character is involved I declare a split and roll a die to decide to gets attacked. It's done above board and ask my players to call any bias if they see it. Often I let them place "my" character or make decisions that would be difficult for me to make or seem fair making. Often "my" character gets put in risk, or plays second fiddle, or is treated more harshly than the other PCs. I definitely make sure to not run an optimized character or act on information the party does not have.


Can DMPCing go horribly wrong and ruin a game? Absolutely, but the same DM that can't treat a DMPC fairly is often the same DM that can't run a game or NPCs fairly. IMO a good DM can run a DMPC fairly and a bad DM can't, nor can a bad DM run a successful game either for that matter. So, I see a DMPC as a personal preference for DMs, they are not inherently bad, but in the hands of an unskilled or incompetent DM they can be a disaster, but I'm not convinced that disaster DMPC DMs wouldn't ruin their games in dozens of other ways and believe it'd be almost inevitable.

Cluedrew
2016-07-17, 09:44 PM
In no case should the DM see an NPC as "their" character.Personally I view all/most characters I create for a campaign as my characters. So if I am the DM that means most of the supporting cast is made of my characters. However that is just how I personally look at it.

To goto124: Just ask the GM out of character "is this a hint or the character's idea?" The majority of problems in life role-playing can be solved with proper communication.

Geddy2112
2016-07-17, 10:44 PM
The only time I would give the party an NPC is either if they hire/recruit one, or if the party is small (2-3 players) and they really lack a niche they desperately need. In any case, the NPC always fades into the background and the players are always center stage. At best, they are supporting cast.

There is an exception when a quest involves following an NPC. Perhaps they are recruiting guards for travel, or adventurers to help with some project. The NPC can be taken on in this case.


Here are a few tips I use for NPCs in general:

1) If they are great at something, it is something other PCs can't do.

2) Their abilities are very well defined, I never have a wizard, as if you suddenly pull out invisibility when the party needs it, then it feels like a Deus Ex Machina. Instead, I have an Aquamancer who can only cast spells related to water, or a Geomancer, or Mentalist, who can only cast spells in similar narrow scopes. In this way, the PCs know exactly what to expect from the NPC. Within their narrow scope they are amazing at what they do, morphing spells on the fly to meet requirements, if the PCs come up with any plan involving water and magic, the Aquamancer can do it.

3) They are straight up worse at the areas of overlap with PCs core abilities. The DM Paladin is new to the faith, he is an old veteran who is good in a fight, but does not have enough faith to power up his lay on hands or protective aura properly. The young town guard is a Battlemaster, but is a noob, so whenever he fails at an manauver, he fumbles and leaves himself open. He tries lots of tricky stuff, but half the time he might disarm himself rather than the enemy.

4) They have psychological limitations which prevent them from being a good guide for the PC. The elf is so arrogant he can't see clear threats, the young cleric is naive, the brash pirate is impulsive etc. Something that would make the PCs stupid to put their entire plan in that person hands. Their is a reason this person is not the leader of the group.

5) DMPCs are the currency of failure. They are the step down from killing a PC. If you don't want a TPK but their needs to be some consequences for stupidity or bad luck, or if you need to display a BBEGs power and evil, it is a DMPCs time to die.

6) If you have two of them, then it is best that they don't get along at all. Having a duo that work together join the party is nowhere near as interesting as having two opposites. This feeds into the points above about DM guidance.

7) At least one NPC is reluctant to be there or is quiet humble, thinking the PCs are the real heroes. This means that they will run to deliver messages so that PCs can keep doing their adventure. They will guard the horses while the PCs storm the castle. They can be used for all those times when the party would be wise to split, but does not do so to keep the game running.

Second all of this entirely. If the party is hiring on NPC's, they are hiring them for a reason. If the party is going delving in a dungeon full of undead, yet none of them know a thing about undead, they might hire somebody who does. Or perhaps they are a bunch of feeble low level casters-big burly sellsword mooks incoming. However, the undead expert is a low level cleric or feeble academic who is sickly and goes down to a stiff breeze. The sellsword mooks are either Hodor levels of communication, stupid, brashly arrogant, drunkards, or something else that makes them a detriment in any situation that does not require raw muscle. The key is that the NPC is only there for that niche role, and it is just enough to be "decent" To add to this, I always make the NPC's the party hires lower level or generally weaker in every aspect to a party member.
In the case of the escort mission, design the NPC to match the party-the NPC needs the party. Even if they are a good fighter, perhaps they need magic. Or the wizard needs heavy lifting. Again, don't make them ungodly powerful, or if you do make sure the entire premise of the quest hard counter's the NPC's strengths and plays to the strength of the party instead. Perhaps the young wizard is looking to explore a cave and study the creatures within-they might be able to cast some low level spells, use basic spelunking gear, and even defend themselves with a quarterstaff in dire need. But they lack the ability to open heavy doors, disarm(or even notice) traps, fight melee monsters/dungeon oozes, etc.

Quertus
2016-07-18, 12:16 AM
Bad DMPCs are bad. Sure. I've seen them done well, and I've seen them done poorly. There are some general guidelines, but what works for one group may be different than what works for another.


Whenever I have NPCs in combat with the party, I hand a player their stats and go "Here, you deal with him". That way I can't be accused of anything. Also I find other DMs I know are very keen to have the NPC be a valued member of the group, whose vote or voice should carry as much weight as that of a PC. That's nonsense IMO, even if they are a fascinating character, they're still just a supporting cast.

Characters don't have signs over their head that say "PC" or "NPC"; as such, it makes the game feel unrealistic to treat them differently.

Unless there is a good IC reason not to, in any game I'm in, I'll argue for all characters to have equal rights (unless unequal rights is one of the themes of the game, of course).


I can't say that I have ever really been guilty of making an NPC too much of a hero. My players actually complain that my NPCs all seem to be mentally ill and that is a very valid critique.

I have been guilty of using NPCs to lead the PCs around, but I find two main ways to overcome that:

1) All of my NPCs are at best quirky and at worst insane. So the paranoid guy will always suggest sneaking around, regardless of whether that is the best course of action. The proud barbarian will always say "they don't look so tough, we can take them" and suggest a frontal assault. A druid in the current campaign always suggests a wait and see approach, he is patient to a fault. The PCs took his advice, thinking it was DM-advice, and a whole lot of bad stuff happened to the village they wanted to rescue. At least they learnt something.

2) In small campaigns, I often have two NPCs, I just make sure that they never see eye-to-eye. If I want one to give good advice I can do that, since the other one will disagree vehemently, so the PCs still have a choice to make and do not feel that the DM is leading them around.

Here are a few tips I use for NPCs in general:

1) If they are great at something, it is something other PCs can't do.

2) Their abilities are very well defined, I never have a wizard, as if you suddenly pull out invisibility when the party needs it, then it feels like a Deus Ex Machina. Instead, I have an Aquamancer who can only cast spells related to water, or a Geomancer, or Mentalist, who can only cast spells in similar narrow scopes. In this way, the PCs know exactly what to expect from the NPC. Within their narrow scope they are amazing at what they do, morphing spells on the fly to meet requirements, if the PCs come up with any plan involving water and magic, the Aquamancer can do it.

3) They are straight up worse at the areas of overlap with PCs core abilities. The DM Paladin is new to the faith, he is an old veteran who is good in a fight, but does not have enough faith to power up his lay on hands or protective aura properly. The young town guard is a Battlemaster, but is a noob, so whenever he fails at an manauver, he fumbles and leaves himself open. He tries lots of tricky stuff, but half the time he might disarm himself rather than the enemy.

4) They have psychological limitations which prevent them from being a good guide for the PC. The elf is so arrogant he can't see clear threats, the young cleric is naive, the brash pirate is impulsive etc. Something that would make the PCs stupid to put their entire plan in that person hands. Their is a reason this person is not the leader of the group.

5) DMPCs are the currency of failure. They are the step down from killing a PC. If you don't want a TPK but their needs to be some consequences for stupidity or bad luck, or if you need to display a BBEGs power and evil, it is a DMPCs time to die.

6) If you have two of them, then it is best that they don't get along at all. Having a duo that work together join the party is nowhere near as interesting as having two opposites. This feeds into the points above about DM guidance.

7) At least one NPC is reluctant to be there or is quiet humble, thinking the PCs are the real heroes. This means that they will run to deliver messages so that PCs can keep doing their adventure. They will guard the horses while the PCs storm the castle. They can be used for all those times when the party would be wise to split, but does not do so to keep the game running.

That's quite a list. I can see that being fun. But I wouldn't say that those are all essential traits for every dmpc.

First campaign (not just adventure) I ever ran, party insisted on collecting as many NPCs as possible. NPCs greatly outnumbered PCs in that party.

According to the rules most anyone - including myself! - would give you, it should have been terrible. The NPCs were often much more powerful than the PCs. The NPCs often had very strong opinions on things - and the PCs wanted to hear those opinions. The NPCs were often diametrically opposed to one another, sometimes to the point of wanting one another dead. The NPCs often had powerful enemies, and stronger ties to certain plots (mind you, this campaign was a sandbox) than the PCs.

This really should have been "The NPC Show", where the PCs just tagged along.

But it worked, and the players loved it. They resisted any attempt I made to have NPCs fade into the sunset.

It worked in part, oddly enough, because of how many NPCs they had. The NPCs couldn't get along, independently, but the lowest charisma on the PC side was a 15. The PCs were the glue, the deciding vote, the motivation of the party. And the NPCs knew it. The PCs gave the NPCs allies they never would have had on their own.

When it came time for combat, I tended to abstract the npc actions. I'd mention the NPCs only when something important happened. Like, on round 2, I'd mention that Cleric 1 was getting surrounded. On turn 3, I'd mention Dragon 2 (in human form) had disarmed and sat upon one of the foes, and was interrogating it. Etc.

And, it just so happened, one could argue that any NPCs that would be DMPC material, were at the level of the PCs or weaker.


I would just find some way to put the DMPC in the "combat" but not in the actual "Combat." He is to be nebulously described as being occupied by the enemy while not being represented on the actual mat.

For example, if your players insist on bringing along a powerful NPC to a fight, I'll say the powerful NOC is handling some number of the enemy somewhere to the side, then start putting down the monsters for the side that the PCs are responsible for.

See above. My players usually wanted more detail than that. If I could have gotten away with that, I would have!

Although, much like giving the players tools to work with in a sandbox, giving the players these little status updates often gave them things they cared about at least as much as the battle proper, as they could interact with the NPCs' portion of the battle at any time.


I've left games over this sort of thing. I put all my trust in the GM, to make sure I don't mess up games that the GM clearly has put so much effort into. I don't want it twisted.

Hmmm... I tend to have my NPCs state their opinions. Having a voice in the game that isn't the voice of DM is the reason I like having an npc / dmpc in the party. If the NPC had a consistent personality, with their own motivations, quirks, and obviously not omniscient perspective, would you still have trouble separating them giving bad advice from the DM doing so?


I don't recognize the existence of the "DMPC". There are NPCs, who might sometimes accompany the party. In no case should the DM see an NPC as "their" character. They are a person in the world, who should react according to the rules of that world and not according to the DM's omniscient metagame knowledge. In my opinion, NPCs of equivalent ability to the PC's should only be occasional and temporary party members. Significantly lower power NPC's (at least two or three levels lower) can be hired or recruited as henchmen. All NPCs should be subject to the rules of morale and social reactions so that the DM is not exclusively controlling them, but allowing the NPCs to react organically to the world.
Don't have campaigns centered around stuff that NPCs are doing with other NPCs, while the PCs look on and accompany them here and there. That is just not a good format, the players are meant to be the primary movers and decision makers in the game. Figure out a way to set up your campaign so the players activities are central and NPC's occupy peripheral roles.

Absolutely agree with the bolded part. No character should use OOC knowledge; this is especially true of anything the DM runs, from NPCs & DMPCs to the BBEG.

When you have a rotating DM, though, you don't recognize the DM's PC as a dmpc? You don't feel that the DM should view their character as "their" character?

LaserFace
2016-07-18, 01:38 AM
I don't run DMPCs, but there are often guest NPCs who will help the party with a quest before deciding they have other stuff to do. Although I try to have these NPCs be effective, I usually have them just sit in the background when it comes to roleplaying challenges, and they fulfill very simple, thankless jobs in or out of combat. A Fighter will probably just try to draw the attention of a group of minions, a Mage will probably just spam simple attack spells or maybe give allies some buffs. Nothing flashy; the players can do that. NPCs are always second fiddle.

Mr Beer
2016-07-18, 01:56 AM
I don't run DMPCs. Important NPCs seldom get involved with fighting (that's what the hired psychos are for) and when they do, they are often pretty lucklustre at it. The most useful NPC I'd generally be prepared to provide for an adventure would be a healbot if the party is missing one.

The horrorshow stories of DMs shoehorning in Mary Sue ninja wizards grinds my gears pretty badly, I'd probably walk from a game like that fast.

Thrudd
2016-07-18, 02:28 AM
Absolutely agree with the bolded part. No character should use OOC knowledge; this is especially true of anything the DM runs, from NPCs & DMPCs to the BBEG.

When you have a rotating DM, though, you don't recognize the DM's PC as a dmpc? You don't feel that the DM should view their character as "their" character?

I don't think I've ever done rotating DM's in the same game/setting. Rotating sessions running separate games, or switching DM's when one person got tired of doing it, but never rotating regularly in the same game/setting/campaign. The DM's former character becomes an NPC, I would say, and preferably would be left behind or sit out for the adventure in which his/her player was not playing. I just don't like the idea of the DM being attached to any particular character.

BWR
2016-07-18, 05:47 AM
Every time this subject comes up I say the same thing: DMPCs are fine so long as they do not outshine the rest of the party on a regular basis and are not the main focus of the adventure (in general: there are always exceptions where it could work). If the PCs and players bring DMPCs along willingly they have no right to complain about the DMPCs taking screentime. If an NPC is useful in a fight it makes no sense to have them do nothing in the fight just so the PCs can shine. One option you might employ to allow NPCs and DMPCs to take part in a fight but not impact it is the background fight: the NPCs fight a bunch of minions and automatically win by the end of the fight but the DM makes no rolls and the extra minions aren't part of the PCs' fight.

Piedmon_Sama
2016-07-18, 11:46 PM
First campaign (not just adventure) I ever ran, party insisted on collecting as many NPCs as possible. NPCs greatly outnumbered PCs in that party.

According to the rules most anyone - including myself! - would give you, it should have been terrible. The NPCs were often much more powerful than the PCs. The NPCs often had very strong opinions on things - and the PCs wanted to hear those opinions. The NPCs were often diametrically opposed to one another, sometimes to the point of wanting one another dead. The NPCs often had powerful enemies, and stronger ties to certain plots (mind you, this campaign was a sandbox) than the PCs.

This really should have been "The NPC Show", where the PCs just tagged along.

But it worked, and the players loved it. They resisted any attempt I made to have NPCs fade into the sunset.


I sort of hate to say this but are you me?? This describes the campaign I'm running now (which is the first game I've run offline in like 10+ years) to a T.

It's also a sandbox game: like, ideally I wanted to create a map, put cool stuff on that map, and let my friends have at it. The high concept is, there's a border region on the edge of a vast wilderness full of lost riches and treasure waiting to be plundered. So the players aren't the only adventurers in town--there's NPCs with character classes ranging from the humdrum to the strange also there to form their own expeditions and strike it rich. My goal was to essentially try to give my players a feeling of being under the gun---if you don't go plunder that lost Elven Temple, these guys will do it first.

Instead, my players surprised me: they reached out to those other adventurers. They appreciate the much-increased surviveability of a party of six or eight over a party of four. They're actually willing to take smaller shares of XP and treasure for a higher chance of success. They also seem to (?) enjoy my playacting as various NPCs, like a pompous Tiefling nobleman or a sarcastic goblin rogue. Like, I'm the one going "well, [this NPC] is indicating maybe this mission isn't for him" but my players really enjoy having these characters around to talk to and interact with. Hopefully it's because I do a decent job playing with them and not because my campaign is boring or something.

LaserFace
2016-07-19, 12:18 AM
Instead, my players surprised me: they reached out to those other adventurers. They appreciate the much-increased surviveability of a party of six or eight over a party of four. They're actually willing to take smaller shares of XP and treasure for a higher chance of success. They also seem to (?) enjoy my playacting as various NPCs, like a pompous Tiefling nobleman or a sarcastic goblin rogue. Like, I'm the one going "well, [this NPC] is indicating maybe this mission isn't for him" but my players really enjoy having these characters around to talk to and interact with. Hopefully it's because I do a decent job playing with them and not because my campaign is boring or something.

I think it's just that players generally like to meet interesting characters. Whenever I'm playing a RPG, I like interacting with people who are in the established universe in some way; they give you new perspectives and can help with immersion. Obviously video games experiences are way different from a D&D session, but I think the principle still holds. I think it only really becomes a problem if you're robbing the players of agency in the world. But, just because their characters aren't alone, it doesn't mean they don't have their own story.

I would take it that so long as players seem to be having fun, you're probably doing things just fine.

Quertus
2016-07-19, 08:03 AM
I sort of hate to say this but are you me?? This describes the campaign I'm running now (which is the first game I've run offline in like 10+ years) to a T.

I'm so glad I wasn't at the library when I read this - I just couldn't stop laughing. :smallbiggrin:

"Yes, Dori, I'm your conscience. I know we haven't spoken in a while..."

There are plenty of theories where the answer to that question is "yes", ranging from shared divinity or us both being NPCs in the game of life to non-linear reincarnation or multiple personality disorder. So... maybe? :smalltongue:

Kudos on keeping your players happy and rolling with the punches. I hope you're having fun running all those NPCs. Out of curiosity, how do you handle having so many NPCs in combat?

CharonsHelper
2016-07-19, 08:07 AM
...Fighter1/Sorcerer5 he self buffs and runs around unarmored tossing out Booming Blades. In fact in the first round of the major fight last week he quickened a Haste

He shouldn't be able to cast Haste at all. How in the world did he quicken it!?

CharonsHelper
2016-07-19, 08:13 AM
I don't think I've ever done rotating DM's in the same game/setting. Rotating sessions running separate games, or switching DM's when one person got tired of doing it, but never rotating regularly in the same game/setting/campaign. The DM's former character becomes an NPC, I would say, and preferably would be left behind or sit out for the adventure in which his/her player was not playing. I just don't like the idea of the DM being attached to any particular character.

The closest I ever came was when my buddy and I split DM duties for a campaign. We didn't have DMPC issues though, because we shared a character who had multiplicity personality disorder - switching control from week to week.

Amusingly enough, one session which he missed the end of (he was in a band which had a gig that night) was the one and only time I killed a PC - his/ours. Another PC was possessed by an evil intelligent sword and went on a rampage and killed him. >.<

Martin Greywolf
2016-07-19, 09:51 AM
I don't think about whether to DMPC or not to DMPC at all. If player/s meet an NPC they like and what him to join them and they manage to convince him, sure, why not. He's a character of his own and will act accordingly to how he's been made. If they like him enough, then he may get full-on character arcs and character development.

Thing is, an NPC getting character development doesn't mean that I take spotlight away from the players. The NPC is there because they want him there, so they really should do something about those tough times - in other words, if there's an arc focused on an NPC in player's party, then the PCs are either the catalyst or major player/helper of that NPC's story.

Honestly, it can be just as rewarding to help an NPC overcome her past problems and live a little than to slaughter an army of baddies. The NPC helping is often far more rewarding, because players manage to form a bond with the NPC. Think more Mass Effect, less Diablo.

Once dice need to be rolled, I just give stats of the NPC to the player and let them run him. There are some exceptions (NPC hiding stuff from them, NPC in direct conflict with PCs), but players usually have full control of them during fights or important negotiations. This does take a measure of skill and trust in your players, but if the worst happens, you can always retcon.

One caveat is if the NPC is secretly much stronger than the players are - in that case, I give players stats that are weaker than the real abilities of the NPC and take over once the NPC decides to go full monty.

That said, PCs still should have a stake in things. If they're escorting a princess, have her fall in love with one (or more) of them, or have a dastardly enemy captain make things personal somehow. That way, you can still have your princess NPC have her moment at the ball where she reveals who she is, while your PCs will get to fight the dastardly captain while swinging from the chandeliers. Or vice versa, actually, it depends on what your players like more.

Rysto
2016-07-19, 11:32 AM
He shouldn't be able to cast Haste at all. How in the world did he quicken it!?

Uh, why not? In 5e it's a third-level Sorcerer spell.

Velaryon
2016-07-19, 12:10 PM
Having a DMPC is a thing that's easily done wrong, more difficult to do right, but can be done right. There are certain DM's I trust to do it correctly and others I do not. It all comes down to the DM's ability to make sure that the actual PCs remain the star of the show and do not become overshadowed.

The DM I know who is best at it likes to have one in almost every game. He treats the character as just another PC, with the same limitations as far as equipment, character level, etc. as everyone else. On top of that, he usually makes them as some kind of support character, be it a healer, secondary caster, buffer, etc. But then, half the time when he's a PC he often plays that type of character anyway, so maybe it just happens to work out very well that one of his preferred character types happens to be exactly what a DMPC should be.

He is careful not to give the DMPC preferential story treatment - if anything, he goes in the opposite direction and has them mostly keep quiet and never be the main star of the scene. There was actually one time that the DMPC got captured because he was incapacitated in combat and the rest of the party actually forgot he was there until after combat, so we forgot to revive him!

whisperwind1
2016-07-19, 12:32 PM
I feel like having the DMPC in their own peripheral combats is a good idea, it keeps them from overshadowing the PCs while also having them contribute to the situation.

One thing I disagree with is the notion of giving NPCs arcs that are central to the story, even if the PCs are featured actors in it. In my games, if a NPC is crucial its because the PC asked for it specifically. Like one player told me he wanted a romantic interest so i delivered one, complete with sidequest and backstory. But the NPCs' fate was solely the decision of the PC, he decided what would become of her.

Thats how i see the DMPC. They are fully realized characters with opinions, but they should not be held on the same level as the PCs. If the players want to interact with them i love it, but at no point should they feel like the NPC is more important on a game level than they are.

Piedmon_Sama
2016-07-19, 04:11 PM
Kudos on keeping your players happy and rolling with the punches. I hope you're having fun running all those NPCs. Out of curiosity, how do you handle having so many NPCs in combat?

Essentially they break down into two types---there's hirelings, and there's allied adventurers. Hirelings are hired by a specific character, not the party as a whole, so during combat I put them under a specific player's control and have them act on that character's initiative (like an animal companion or mount). Allied adventurers all act on a single initiative (the highest or lowest depending on how I'm feeling) so I get all their actions out of the way at once. Likewise, when the party is fighting multiple enemies I have them all go on the same initiative.

Sometimes with so many characters in a party (add up all the animals, hirelings and allies along with the PCs and there's like 20 characters all told) you forget things. Said pompous Tiefling nobleman was once forgotten for two rounds so I explained it as him having got his sword stuck in its scabbard and struggling to clear it for the last 12 seconds.

Dragonexx
2016-07-19, 06:40 PM
Sometimes DMPC's are unavoidable. I'm currently setting up a 1x1 game with a friend, and each of us has a character. It's more or less inevitable for things like this.

Also, I like this quote.


There is seriosly nothing wrong with DMPCs. At its core, it's the DM telling you that the NPC assistant you get is playing by the same rules that the rest of you are. And while the temptation exists to drop artifact swords, high born lovers, and special mecha armor on the DMPC, that temptation exists for NPCs who don't have a character sheet as well.

Everyone has a story of a DMPC gone power mad. But how many more stories do you have of transient or recurrent NPCs who show up and slap you with a virtual penis?

DMPCs are not only a requirement of a rotating DMing system - they are at the core a system of checks and balances on the DM's actions. The DM giving a name and a character sheet to the party cleric or decker is the DM's way of promising that that character won't whip it out on the table as some sort of stupid power trip. Now, he's the DM, he can break a promise. But there's nothing wrong with him making it in the first place.

-Frank