Am I just an unreasonable player?

[90sMusic]

I DM 2 different games each week and I like it, my players like it, and while i've heard stories about players who stop showing up or stop wanting to participate, that hasn't happened to me. My players tend to stick around for up to an hour usually after the game is over just talking about everything that happened, sometimes we've spent as much as 3 additional hours just discussing everything after the fact. They all seem to enjoy it.

I like being a DM, I find it to be a fun and creative outlet and I keep the game within the rules unless they just don't make sense for one reason or another or sometimes i'll fudge them a little in the player's favor just to add more fun, excitement, or whatever to the game. However, I also like just relaxing and being a player sometimes so I can just show up and improvise the whole thing without worrying about it.

However, I have played in a dozen games ran by other people, and while I love to roleplay and play within the worlds and so on, I always get into a situation where I cannot stand the DM. I feel like there are just a ton of "bad" DM's out there. They change the game rules on the fly to suit the situation, they disallow things that should work, make things completely impossible. For example in one game we were sent to get a crown but it was stuck to the king's head (after he died). We couldn't remove it with strength checks, even a natural 20 one that was rolled, so we decided it must be enchanted or something to prevent it from being taken off. So we decided we'd just cut the king's head off and bring the whole head with us until we had time to identify the crown's properties. The DM basically responded, "Uh... I didn't think about that... uh... His neck has a forcefield, you can't hit it with your blade.." to which I facepalmed and just immediately stopped interacting. When crap like that happens, it becomes painfully clear you're on the railroad and have to do exactly as the DM predetermined before the game even started and your actions literally DO NOT MATTER because no matter what happens or what you do, nothing will work except the specific path he laid out which is going to happen regardless. So I was annoyed. And things like that happen a lot. DM's never improvise, they never allow player freedom, they just stick to it like it's a script to a movie and if it doesn't play out exactly as they imagined they won't let it happen at all. To me, it makes it feel pointless to even play because the game is no longer about your imagination, your creativity, or even the luck of the dice, it is instead a scripted play you're just riding along with.

So my most recent issue was, in a different game, I was playing a paladin and our party was exploring a sewer system. We ran into a field of magical darkness that none of us could see through that was just inexplicably there. But I didn't have a problem with that, I said that's fine, whatever. I used divine sense to try to detect any undead within 60 feet, DM said there were none. So I stepped into the darkness and was IMMEDIATELY attacked by creatures. When we finally used the daylight spell to reveal the area, they were practically zombies. They were humanoid creatures sewn together from parts of corpses, somehow it didn't register on divine sense. Alright. Story moves on a bit, while we're in this same sewer we run into an old man walking around acting senile who we had just witnessed disarm one of the traps that nearly killed half our party an hour earlier. I suspected he was some sort of villain, because some crazy old man isn't going to survive in this place full of zombies and werewolves, but I had no hard evidence, not enough to act on aside from my hunch. I used divine sense on him, he didn't register as undead or fiend. I questioned him, rolled natural 20 on two different insight checks, and DM told me he was telling the truth and I believed him.

No more than an hour later we ended up fighting this guy and it turns out he WAS undead, he WAS lying, and so on. At that point I basically just shut down. I stopped trying to roleplay or really interact, I lost all interest in playing. What is the point? If critical rolls don't mean anything, if class features don't work, I mean honestly what is the bloody point? It's like being led around on a leash and nothing can happen unless it is "supposed" to happen.

The whole reason I enjoy playing D&D is because of the FREEDOM and CREATIVITY and the limitless possibilities of it. It's why I enjoy it more than playing video game RPGs because those games are restricted and limited in what you can do, how you progress, where you go, and so on. D&D is supposed to be open and free form, but these bad DM's want to design everything to be a monorail track where no matter what you do, it doesn't change anything.

So am I just being unreasonable for expecting more than this? Are most games like this? I might as well stick to DMing and not bother trying to play anymore. I find it VERY telling that my players are so involved in the story and their characters and all have a great time while these other people have to constantly replace people that quit on them.

[pwykersotz]

Dang. That is awful.

You're not wrong for wanting and expecting more. Those two scenarios are pretty bad. As a followup question though, did you try and talk to the DM's about these issues? I'm of the opinion that the only bad DM is one who is unwilling to learn.

[NecessaryWeevil]

As a followup question though, did you try and talk to the DM's about these issues? I'm of the opinion that the only bad DM is one who is unwilling to learn.

Amen to that.

That second example is pretty bad. Regarding that first one though...maybe the DM deserves the benefit of the doubt. Yes, "the neck has a forcefield" is pretty clumsy, but if the entire plot is built on the fact that the crown is on the king's corpse, it may be a choice between railroading a little or saying "Well, you might as well go home because you just shortcircuited the adventure." Adventures are about stories after all, which need some sort of a plot for the characters to interact with.

[90sMusic]

Dang. That is awful.

You're not wrong for wanting and expecting more. Those two scenarios are pretty bad. As a followup question though, did you try and talk to the DM's about these issues? I'm of the opinion that the only bad DM is one who is unwilling to learn.

I did. I didn't mention it in game, but after the game was over I talked with him about it and was telling him my concerns. First thing I brought up were his werewolves in that magical darkness. In game, he said they could see perfectly in the magical darkness due to their sense of smell. They had advantage on all attacks against anyone inside it and just automatically knew where everyone was. I told him that it shouldn't really work that way, they could make a perception check to find us, and have advantage on the roll to locate us, but they would still have disadvantage to hit us if we had disadvantage to hit them because they can't see. Werewolves do not have blindsense or blindsight. He didn't really have much of an answer to that and kind of handwaved it.

I mentioned that while I enjoyed most of the game, it was very disheartening to have one of my class features be apparently completely useless in this campaign and doesn't work at all and also mentioned how my two critical insight rolls yielded no results, no knowledge, and he still somehow lied to me. He argued that there are spells to hide you from that kind of thing. I guess he was talking about nondetection, but i'm pretty sure that only applies to divination spells and not a class feature that isn't really a magical effect. Even the fluff for it says it's basically a 6th sense and you smell evil and hear heavenly goodness in things. But I didn't argue the point with him, I just accepted it and moved on to my concern about the critical insight rolls. He "assured" me that both times when I crit my insight roll, that guy happened to also crit his deception rolls.

I find all of it to be a pill that is just too hard to swallow. I'm going to give that game one more go and see if things get any better or the situation changes, but otherwise i'm done with it. It's absolutely ridiculous to be straight up lied to through a critical insight check, TWICE, and have one of your class features magically fail to function all 3 times I used it.

Oh another thing I forgot to mention, this is one of those DM's who has their own PC in the party. And guess what? It is higher level than everyone else and knows everything because of DM meta knowledge so it detects all the traps, finds all the secrets, and so on. I don't believe this is some temporary NPC character either, it is treated like a full fledged member of the party. That is another thing I find a bit repulsive.

I just want to play a decent game with a fair DM. One that follows the rules, except where it's a little ambiguous and needs some sort of judgement call, or if they do change the rules let the players know in advance how things are going to be different so they don't go into the game expecting their class features to work as they should instead of finding out they dont work because he doesn't want it to "spoil his plans" by having a evil walk right up in your face, not expecting anyone to use any sort of abilities or spells to detect it's identity and also expecting everyone to fail their insight rolls. I mean come on.

Edit: Another thing that happened in that magical darkness was he kept giving us conflicting information about what was "real" depending on what we were planning. One of the partymembers had a pet with blindsight and was able to detect the locations of the creatures inside the darkness and told us where they were. Their specific locations. So we started making plans to sneak out of there. My plan was to set fire to some of the bodies of the creatures we had slain to fill the cave up with smoke to effectively blind their sense of smell, then someone was going to cast silence around our party so they couldn't hear us either. Without sight, hearing, or smell, we shouldn't have been able to be located and could've sneaked out. I also suggested any casters try to use prestidigitation to create illusory smells of our characters at random points throughout the darkness in case they COULD smell us through the smoke somehow, they might be drawn to the fake smells instead of us.

But as I was telling everyone my plan, DM basically said "actually... there are 3 more guards standing right by the exit" even though they weren't there before. He just plopped them in magically after he heard my idea. I'm just so tired of it, you know? I mean for goodness sake, make a world, stick to the rules of that world, stop changing everything to force players to go down a specific route or path. I don't see why DM's want everything to happen EXACTLY as they want it to happen and absolutely refuse to let anything else happen. They change the laws of reality to keep you on your train track.

[GlenSmash!]

Oh another thing I forgot to mention, this is one of those DM's who has their own PC in the party. And guess what? It is higher level than everyone else and knows everything because of DM meta knowledge so it detects all the traps, finds all the secrets, and so on. I don't believe this is some temporary NPC character either, it is treated like a full fledged member of the party. That is another thing I find a bit repulsive.
.

DMPCs are a sign of a novice DM at best. If this DM has been DMing for while and still uses them don't just walk from that game. Run.

[Zman]

DMPCs are a sign of a novice DM at best. If this DM has been DMing for while and still uses them don't just walk from that game. Run.

That is an unfair characterization. I often run a DMPC that plays by the PCs rules, does not use meta knowledge, and does not steal the show. I happen to be a phenomenal DM running a PsuedoSandbox world with what amounts to a waiting list of people wanting in on my IRL game, to the point I have to turn people myself. Why do I do it? Because other DMs are outright terrible and if I want a good game, I have to DM it so I never get to play. I've never played a significant campaign with a DM that was better than merely fair.

To the OP, yeah if you're a good DM most other DMs will be intolerable. Just control the them with the group present in a respectful and constructive manner. If they are incapable or unwilling to improve their skills leave the game and don't feel bad for it. One point to be fair, it sounds like you were attempting a lot of OOC meta planning with no way for your characters to hshare information mid encounter and were stretching some things like Prestigitation further than they are RAI or RAW able to do or can creates smells, but cannot duplicate he scent of a particular individual. One pitfall DMs as players run into is using their system mastery and Metaknowledge to control party tactics and options.

[Mandragola]

Interesting, and unfortunate, that you've had that experience. Honestly I've tended to find pretty good DMs for games I've been involved in.

The only real problems I tend to encounter are around people not knowing the rules, which is forgivable because there are so many. It does get on my nerves when people don't know the rules for their own characters though, or when DMs don't know what their monsters do. That werewolf example above is a good example - not understanding that a good sense of smell doesn't entirely negate the fact that you can't see anything.

I have come across a DM who I didn't really get on with because we just had a really different sense of humour. He was actually a nice guy, but it just didn't work. He played every adventure as a comedy, but I honestly didn't find it as funny as he did and it got tired. Decent DM in all other respects though.

[uraniumrooster]

For the most part, the situations you've shared sound like pretty basic rookie DM mistakes more than anything. They designed encounters and plot devices to follow their railroad tracks without fully considering how you and the other players might throw a wrench in their plans. When the inevitable happened, they were caught off guard and too flustered to improvise a solution on the fly, so ruled by DM fiat. It's not great, but it's not the worst mistake a DM can make.


Oh another thing I forgot to mention, this is one of those DM's who has their own PC in the party. And guess what? It is higher level than everyone else and knows everything because of DM meta knowledge so it detects all the traps, finds all the secrets, and so on. I don't believe this is some temporary NPC character either, it is treated like a full fledged member of the party. That is another thing I find a bit repulsive.

This is a pretty big red flag though. DMPCs are one thing if they're background story characters, or just there to fill a role the party would be missing otherwise, but a Mary Sue DMPC is inexcusable. I would leave this game as quick as you can. In combination with the other instances, it sounds like truly bad DMing - blatant railroading, removing player agency, and stroking their own ego with a Mary Sue DMPC. I've known a few DMs like this, and they aren't interested in running a D&D game so much as they are in narrating their would-be fantasy novel to a captive audience.

[Sigreid]

DMPCs are a sign of a novice DM at best. If this DM has been DMing for while and still uses them don't just walk from that game. Run.

Not necessarily. In my group we rotate the DM role and it's just easier to keep all the characters together. We're all pretty good about taking a step back and just fulfilling our basic role when we DM. The fighter fights. The rogue Rogues. The cast casts. And maybe the DMPC on occasion makes a bad decision that keeps things interesting if it suits his personality and the party doesn't watch him. :)

[90sMusic]

One point to be fair, it sounds like you were attempting a lot of OOC meta planning with no way for your characters to hshare information mid encounter and were stretching some things like Prestigitation further than they are RAI or RAW able to do or can creates smells, but cannot duplicate he scent of a particular individual. One pitfall DMs as players run into is using their system mastery and Metaknowledge to control party tactics and options.

There was zero metagaming involved and this didn't happen mid encounter. The combat was over, we were trapped in a piece of tunnel about 40 feet in diameter. There were only two ways out of this tunnel, the first was through a giant, permanent field of magical darkness apparently full of zombies and werewolves, the other was through a giant mechanical trap that was "impossible" ti disarm or avoid and the only reason we got unstuck from it in the first place was because the omniscient DMPC figured out a way to trick the trap into letting us go which was the exact same plan one of the players came up with moments before and failed when they attempted it. We actually camped the night in there instead of attempting to leave through either exit because the omniscient DMPC told us that it would probably be safe to do so. I was making these plans the following morning discussing in character with the party.

I simply came up with the best plan I could come up with given the situation we were in the following morning when someone asked "what do we do now?"

The prestidigitation thing might have worked, might not have, it's part of the spell's ability to be able to create faint odors and since the DM was literally rigging his werewolves and changing the rules on how they operate to give them BLINDSIGHT because of their sense of smell which they shouldn't have had, I was just throwing out ideas on how to potentially deal with it. I would've been fine if they didn't fall for the prestidigitation tricks, honestly they wouldn't have been able to smell ANYTHING but smoke in the first place once all those bodies had been burning for a while. Smoke in an enclosed environment like a cave will block out any sense of smell you have for literally anything else. The point is, the DM just talked out of his behind and made things up as he went along to make literally everything impossible except what he wanted us to do.

Oh and of course, our final course of action that we DID take was chosen by the DMPC. And of course no one is going to argue with him because it's pointless. DMPCs are always played as having the best ideas (since they literally know everything and can make any plan of theirs succeed) the DM wasn't open to any logical courses of action aside from mindlessly following and obeying.

I've been wary of them for a long time, but i'm not going to tolerate a game that has one ever again I don't think. People just can't handle it. Best they can do if they want to play a character in the world is have some recurring NPCs with a lot of personality that the players can interact with routinely. Being literally every person in the world should be enough for any DM to be satisfied, following the players around with their own character they are emotionally invested in is and always will be a terrible idea. It's like being the judge and jury at your own trial, literally nothing that happens in that courtroom matters.

[quinron]

This is a pretty big red flag though. DMPCs are one thing if they're background story characters, or just there to fill a role the party would be missing otherwise, but a Mary Sue DMPC is inexcusable. I would leave this game as quick as you can. In combination with the other instances, it sounds like truly bad DMing - blatant railroading, removing player agency, and stroking their own ego with a Mary Sue DMPC. I've known a few DMs like this, and they aren't interested in running a D&D game so much as they are in narrating their would-be fantasy novel to a captive audience.

While I agree with Zman that DMPCs don't automatically mean "novice DM," it seems to me that that's a more likely explanation than any gloryhounding on the DM's part. Having a PC in the party and using metaknowledge means that no matter what happens, you as the DM will be able to keep the game from stalling; it's not by any means a good way of accomplishing this, but I can see why a novice DM would choose to do so.

90sMusic, I'd encourage you to keep doing what you're doing: talk to the DM after the game and tell them any big problems you had. While they may wave it off at first, it's pretty likely that they're still going to take it into account later. Like I said, I'm definitely getting a vibe of "inexperienced DM not totally sure how the game's meant to be run" rather than "bad DM who should know better."

As a good and fairly experienced DM yourself, keep in mind that it may not be apparent to you how much it took you to develop those skills. Like pwykersotz said, the only bad DM is one who's not willing to change, and someone who's a bad DM today could end up being the best DM someone's ever had in the future. I know I started out pretty badly, and I've still got a lot of learning to do.

[90sMusic]

I guess it's just a difference of style and taste.

I've personally built entire dungeons, bosses, even fleshed out cities that players never even saw because they chose to go somewhere else and do something else. Maybe they found actually found a way to prevent that lich from resurrecting and avoided having to fight it. Maybe they cleverly snuck by the enemies who were actually waiting to ambush them.

Through their actions and choices, I let it play out realistically in my world. Sometimes their plans work, sometimes they fail. It's partially up to the dice and partially up to what I feel would or wouldn't work in a given situation. I have never "forced" them to go somewhere or do something they didn't want to. I've even had players arrested and released on the condition they make amends by completing a task for that kingdom then they chose to just make a run for it instead of completing the task. And that's fine, I never force them to do anything, I just improvise and make it up as we go along, but there are consequences for that and they have a bounty on their heads now and certain people they run across make checks in secret to see if they recognize them. They've had a few run ins with hunters and will continue to do so until they take care of that bounty one way or another.

My particular style is I like to lay out "possibilities" i guess is the best way to put it. I put obvious quest material in front of them, usually a few options at once, but it's entirely up to them if they do any of it or what order or even how it is done. The reason they were arrested in the first place is because they chose to start a riot in an oppressed city to create a distraction while they attempted to sneak into the heavily guarded villa of the corrupt town magistrate. They had a lot of poor choices that led to that moment and are still suffering the consequences of those actions, but I never said "no, you cant do that" or "nope, magical invisible wall prevents you from going anywhere except down this road". I just think that is lame. And there are consequences and side effects of every choice they make. Maybe they chose to seek a treasure in a dungeon instead of saving a kidnapped nobleman's daughter. When they get back and ask about going to save her, she may already be dead or could've been saved by another adventuring party which becomes rivals of theirs and start competing against them for work and might eventually have a direct confrontation in battle against them.

I don't know, I just hate the railroady, "you must do this" style of play. All I want is to be able to play with a DM that has an open world that behaves more like the real one as far as how encounters and socialization works and so on. Being led from battle to battle and the only RP is essentially the DMPC telling you where you're heading and why in brief anecdotes isn't my idea of a good time. :(

[Zman]

There was zero metagaming involved and this didn't happen mid encounter. The combat was over, we were trapped in a piece of tunnel about 40 feet in diameter. There were only two ways out of this tunnel, the first was through a giant, permanent field of magical darkness apparently full of zombies and werewolves, the other was through a giant mechanical trap that was "impossible" ti disarm or avoid and the only reason we got unstuck from it in the first place was because the omniscient DMPC figured out a way to trick the trap into letting us go which was the exact same plan one of the players came up with moments before and failed when they attempted it. We actually camped the night in there instead of attempting to leave through either exit because the omniscient DMPC told us that it would probably be safe to do so. I was making these plans the following morning discussing in character with the party.

I simply came up with the best plan I could come up with given the situation we were in the following morning when someone asked "what do we do now?"

The prestidigitation thing might have worked, might not have, it's part of the spell's ability to be able to create faint odors and since the DM was literally rigging his werewolves and changing the rules on how they operate to give them BLINDSIGHT because of their sense of smell which they shouldn't have had, I was just throwing out ideas on how to potentially deal with it. I would've been fine if they didn't fall for the prestidigitation tricks, honestly they wouldn't have been able to smell ANYTHING but smoke in the first place once all those bodies had been burning for a while. Smoke in an enclosed environment like a cave will block out any sense of smell you have for literally anything else. The point is, the DM just talked out of his behind and made things up as he went along to make literally everything impossible except what he wanted us to do.

Oh and of course, our final course of action that we DID take was chosen by the DMPC. And of course no one is going to argue with him because it's pointless. DMPCs are always played as having the best ideas (since they literally know everything and can make any plan of theirs succeed) the DM wasn't open to any logical courses of action aside from mindlessly following and obeying.

I've been wary of them for a long time, but i'm not going to tolerate a game that has one ever again I don't think. People just can't handle it. Best they can do if they want to play a character in the world is have some recurring NPCs with a lot of personality that the players can interact with routinely. Being literally every person in the world should be enough for any DM to be satisfied, following the players around with their own character they are emotionally invested in is and always will be a terrible idea. It's like being the judge and jury at your own trial, literally nothing that happens in that courtroom matters.


I'm not saying you didn't have legitimate reasons to be upset with terrible DMing, but the suggested use of Prestigitation is a non starter and no good DM should let that fly. There are many reasons the described situation was unacceptable, and shouldn't have gone how it did. It boils down to an incompetent and poor DM. Leave the game, or attempt to be constructive and teach them how to DM effectively. Hey may not want to listen, then point out why they are ineffective and move on by leaving the game.

I vehemently disagree with your black and white stance on DMPCs, as I know it is quite simply wrong. It is as easy to have a DMPC not use DM Metaknowledge as it is for an NPC to not use meta knowledge. Your experience is a particularly nasty one where the Adam broke all the rules. Having a DMPC does not make a DM bad, but bad DMs are incapable of using a DMPC without ruining the game, just as they are incapable of running NPCs or a BBEG without ruining the game. Bad DMs are bad DMs and incapable of a great many things, running a DMPC is one of them while a good DM will have no trouble running a DMPC without it being a detriment to the game.

As to your DMing style, that is how my PsuedoSandbox world operates. I mean, in my game the players just interrupted a wedding between the heiresses and the acting reagent by using greater invisibility to sneak up to the mad King and use detect magic on him and proceeded to break the feeblemind that was on him courtesy of the reagent. Needless to say it freed the king who attempted to reassert control of his kingdom and sparked a bloody coupe instead of nuptial. The level 6-7 party of six now found themselves stepping in to side with the king against the reagent and lord commander of the army, a 16th Level Wizard and 12 level fighter respectively. The party nearly died before weakening the reagent enough he fled via teleport and winning the day, barely, as they exhausted most of their resources and narrowly avoided dead characters. Then the bard revivified the lord aka King, who was slain during the fight much to their shock, and they were handsomely rewarded. Basically, attending a wedding of a woman they saved they ended up in bloody conflict with two influential people and a handful of knights they considered friendlies only moments before and in the process foiled a plot to control the entire region and unveiled bad they had only rumors of and were chasing with what they thought was an entirely unrelated plot.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Yea, I'd quit that game. Sounds terrible.

[Prakriti]

I used divine sense to try to detect any undead within 60 feet, DM said there were none. So I stepped into the darkness and was IMMEDIATELY attacked by creatures. When we finally used the daylight spell to reveal the area, they were practically zombies. They were humanoid creatures sewn together from parts of corpses, somehow it didn't register on divine sense.
Monsters sewn together from human body-parts are called flesh golems, and they're constructs, not undead. So your DM was in the right here.


He argued that there are spells to hide you from that kind of thing. I guess he was talking about nondetection, but i'm pretty sure that only applies to divination spells and not a class feature that isn't really a magical effect.
The spell is Nystul's Magic Aura, a level 2 Wizard spell, and yes, it fools Divine Sense.


They had advantage on all attacks against anyone inside it and just automatically knew where everyone was. I told him that it shouldn't really work that way, they could make a perception check to find us, and have advantage on the roll to locate us, but they would still have disadvantage to hit us if we had disadvantage to hit them because they can't see. Werewolves do not have blindsense or blindsight. He didn't really have much of an answer to that and kind of handwaved it.
No one should have had advantage or disadvantage in this scenario. The werewolves have disadvantage against targets they can't see; but they also have advantage because you can't see them. The advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out -- for both sides of the encounter.

I can't really blame the DM for getting this wrong, though. The rules for fighting in darkness are convoluted and counter-intuitive. Almost everyone gets them wrong until someone walks them through the many rules involved.


The DM basically responded, "Uh... I didn't think about that... uh... His neck has a forcefield, you can't hit it with your blade.." to which I facepalmed and just immediately stopped interacting.
Unfortunate, but maybe the alternative was ending the campaign then and there. Maybe the whole plot hinged on it, and you had two options: accepting the DM's spur-of-the-moment fix, or packing up and going home. Personally, I'd go along with it.

[BW022]

I don't think it is unreasonable to want a good DM. However, in many cases it is unrealistic to expect one without a lot of screening on your part.

Start by realizing most DMs aren't that great. Most people don't want to DM. Many often do so only because they have to. Of those who DM, many do not have a lot of experience. It takes a lot of games under you belt before you realize that certain things work. Unfortunately, that is often a catch-22 situation -- most players don't stay around with bad DMs long enough to get experience or learn. Then you have a variety of DMs who, no matter how much experience they have, simply aren't good at it. Some don't put in the time, others don't follow rules, others aren't good at improvising, some can't role-play, some are bad with setting/historical accuracy/realism, others are bad with coherence, others overly script, others under-script, etc. It is an art.

I can only count a handful of DMs who can truly improvise beyond the mundane. I consider myself a good DM, but an improvised encounter (whether combat, roleplaying, scene, outdoor encounter, etc.) simply isn't as good a one which I've prepared (usually written out). Most of the time, if I need a good improvised encounter, I am relying on previous experience and making something similar, using a character I've used in another campaign, etc. In most campaigns, I have encounters pre-prepared and then try a few "what if" optional encounters in case the PCs go elsewhere. I'll reset/order/change modules for the next session if PCs are totally doing something different, but try steering them back on course. However, that requires a ton of time -- one which most DMs aren't willing to do. I think the less experienced you are as a DM, the more you rely non-scripted encounters and try keeping the plot linear. This brings up the next issue that the less experience you have as a DM, the less likely you are to pre-predict what players might do and come up with reasonable ways to 'keep them on tract' or else have arch/storylines/encounters if they go along another path.

So... with the above in mind...

First, you need to screen your DM if you expect not to have a bad experience. Ask questions prior to the game about their experience, style, rules interpretation, setting, etc. Have you run this before? Have you run games in an established setting? What do you believe an acceptable level of railroading is?

Second, if you must play under someone who appears poor... ask the rational of the ruling/setting out of character. Just say "Is it necessary to the plot of this module that we are unable to remove the crown from this body? If so, I won't waste game time trying, otherwise... I'm going to get the crown off the body." It may still be railroading, but at least you are taking a proactive approach and you can still try to have fun within the railroad tracks.

Third, try to help the guy. During a break or at the end of the session, go back to all the cases you had to ask out of character and ask questions. "Did it occur to you that folks wouldn't just tear the body apart to get the crown off? Is there some way you could have written the plot/module so that wouldn't be an issue? Maybe you could have had two paths.... one if they took the crown and one if they didn't."

[Strill]

I mentioned that while I enjoyed most of the game, it was very disheartening to have one of my class features be apparently completely useless in this campaign and doesn't work at all and also mentioned how my two critical insight rolls yielded no results, no knowledge, and he still somehow lied to me. He argued that there are spells to hide you from that kind of thing. I guess he was talking about nondetection, but i'm pretty sure that only applies to divination spells and not a class feature that isn't really a magical effect. Even the fluff for it says it's basically a 6th sense and you smell evil and hear heavenly goodness in things. But I didn't argue the point with him, I just accepted it and moved on to my concern about the critical insight rolls. He "assured" me that both times when I crit my insight roll, that guy happened to also crit his deception rolls.He doesn't know what he's talking about. While Nondetection could reasonably be argued to block Divine Sense, and Nystul's Magic Aura can mask your creature type as something else, there's no way that every single one of those monsters had those spells cast on them.


I'm not saying you didn't have legitimate reasons to be upset with terrible DMing, but the suggested use of Prestigitation is a non starter and no good DM should let that fly.

Why not?! It sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[90sMusic]

He doesn't know what he's talking about. While Nondetection could reasonably be argued to block Divine Sense, and Nystul's Magic Aura can mask your creature type as something else, there's no way that every single one of those monsters had those spells cast on them.
Yeah... That is kind of the issue. I feel like because I am a paladin, and that spell exists, that now every undead creature we come across will have it cast on them unless they are just obviously undead like zombies or skeletons. It makes the feature kind of useless to be honest because you have to be able to SEE them for it to work, so it doesn't reveal any of them who are hiding behind objects or walls or anything, so it would only detect someone who is "in disguise" basically and pretending to be living. All DM has to do is wave their hand and say they have nystul's magic aura on literally every undead posing as a living person simply because i'm playing a paladin and it wouldn't be a thing if I were any other class. It's just a little disappointing. It defeats the whole purpose of the character when DM counters everything about my character and every action I take. And not because it was setup that way in advance or planned out to have those counters in play, but he created them on the spot to everything I came up with.


Why not?! It sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Yeah exactly. Presti can make minor, harmless sensory effects. It is literally part of the spell and explicitly stated out. Perhaps making it smell exactly like another person would be too much, which is why I leave that kind of judgement of to a DM, but to say it is impossible to smell like some generic human or even generic humanoid scent, or heck just some meaty scent of any kind, that is being spiteful as a DM and intentionally screwing your players and stifling creativity. But honestly, I have no idea why Zman seems to be so hung up on the prestidigitation part of that and keeps bringing that up. As I said, it was just potential icing on the cake, an added bonus. It wasn't the crux of the plan by any means. The smoke flooding that cave from the burning corpses and the fact our group was in a bubble of silence should've made us completely imperceptible to those creatures who were relying on scent and hearing to find us. All prestidigitation would've done is "maybe" distract them or lure them away, but whether the DM ruled that particular part would work or not doesn't mean anything honestly because the rest would've worked just fine. Also, it can make minor sounds if you desire as well. Could've easily have made it sound like footsteps running off in the darkness instead of humanoid scents and accomplished the same thing. It sounds almost like instead of reading the spell description and seeing what is listed as "examples", he is reading them as literally the only thing the spell can do (odd odor, musical notes, shower of sparks, etc).

I think people tend to forget a very, very important part of D&D and that is: It is a game. The primary goal and intention of D&D is to have fun and enjoy yourself. If you're running a game (or making rulings) that make your players miserable, you're doing it wrong. It's that simple. You may feel justified or believe you're right or whatever else, but if all of your decisions and rulings are making your players unhappy and losing that enthusiasm to play or feeling cheated or whatever else they feel, then you need to change what you're doing. This is another thing I think most DM's just can't grasp. The game is a cooperative effort between the whole table, a DM has no power or ability except what the players allow them to have, unless the DM just plays with himself and does what amounts to writing bad fanfiction. A lot of DMs treat it as if the entire game is THEIRS and only theirs. Like everyone else should be grateful to even be there and should accept every decision without question and if players start to question them, the DM gets offended like you slapped them in the face.

When I DM, I work to earn the player's trust. If your players trust you, they will accept your rulings, even if they don't understand or agree with them because they trust there is a good reason for it. But if you just keep making up BS as you go along and have no real reasons or justifications for anything that happens aside from "i dont want you to do this" then players lose all faith in you. It only takes a couple of back and forths with new players to earn that trust too, it is so easy to do but people don't take the time to do it or they simply CANT do it because they are straight-up untrustworthy. Railraiding makes you untrustworthy because it invalidates your world, it invalidates the rules, it invalidates logic and reasoning and simply make things happen because you say they do.

Nothing matters in a world where your choices don't matter and always lead to the same outcome. At least modern PC RPGs tend to have around 3 possible "Fake" choices to at least pretend what you do matters. Most DM's cant even do that.

[Strill]

Yeah... That is kind of the issue. I feel like because I am a paladin, and that spell exists, that now every undead creature we come across will have it cast on them unless they are just obviously undead like zombies or skeletons. It makes the feature kind of useless to be honest because you have to be able to SEE them for it to work, so it doesn't reveal any of them who are hiding behind objects or walls or anything, so it would only detect someone who is "in disguise" basically and pretending to be living.

You don't have to see them. It reveals undead that are not behind "total cover". In other words, it would make you aware of any undead that are staring at you through the eyeholes in a painting. It also works on hiding undead that you failed to notice, such as zombies lying on the ground like corpses, or skeletons sitting in an open sarcophagus, or revenants stalking you from behind the trees. It also reveals invisible or incorporeal undead like Ghosts, wraiths, and specters. And of course, it also reveals desecrated areas, which any zombie-infested place should be.

And of course it reveals the presence of succubi and other demons hiding under human disguise, which typically do not have a wide array of magical abilities, so screw him if he decides they just get magical protection from your Divine Sense.

[Mandragola]

My current group's solution is to rotate DMing. We've got one guy who does it more than most. Each of us has a PC, but that PC sits out the adventures that they run. However we have that PC gain equal xp to everyone else, so that whoever DMs doesn't get left behind, and they also get a share of magic items and gold. It's a fudge, but by having all of us DM it means all of us get experience of both sides of the screen, which helps.

If these DMs are so bad, why not invite them to a game where you're DMing and show them how it's done? In general people react better to constructive help rather than constantly being told they are doing it wrong. It's very difficult not to come across as a bit of a smartypants in the situation you describe, where a player is much more experienced than a DM.

The other thing of course is to encourage them to read the DMG. It's full of really excellent advice on how to run campaigns. And of course you can play published modules, which tend to give DMs good reasons for things to happen instead of bad ones.

[Gastronomie]

I'd just quit. If a DM acted like that to me, I wouldn't be able to enjoy his games anymore. If it's not a fun game, no reason to stay at the table.

[90sMusic]

My current group's solution is to rotate DMing. We've got one guy who does it more than most. Each of us has a PC, but that PC sits out the adventures that they run. However we have that PC gain equal xp to everyone else, so that whoever DMs doesn't get left behind, and they also get a share of magic items and gold. It's a fudge, but by having all of us DM it means all of us get experience of both sides of the screen, which helps.

If these DMs are so bad, why not invite them to a game where you're DMing and show them how it's done? In general people react better to constructive help rather than constantly being told they are doing it wrong. It's very difficult not to come across as a bit of a smartypants in the situation you describe, where a player is much more experienced than a DM.

The other thing of course is to encourage them to read the DMG. It's full of really excellent advice on how to run campaigns. And of course you can play published modules, which tend to give DMs good reasons for things to happen instead of bad ones.

I think rotating DM's is a good way to handle some games and solves some of the problems. But in the worlds I create, I build them planning 10 steps ahead. Nearly every building or NPC has some significance, the locations of town have a meaning, the materials the buildings are made of have a meaning, there are reasons for literally everything and they are all their own tiny, self-contained clues to puzzles that interlace together. The players have actually figured out a couple of these patterns and now have this knowledge in character and use it to great effect, but there are still a number of little things that they haven't figured out or pieced together just yet. Mainly because I tend to bury the answers in the midst of unimportant information so even though they know it, they don't really realize it until they think about it. It's fun though because once that spark ignites, it's like a wild fire and they start piecing together information they've been getting on a steady basis from weeks or months earlier and they have this big "oh my god" moment. But anyway, the point is, rotating DM's wouldn't work in my campaign because everything needs to be a certain way or it sort of breaks those intrinsic puzzles. In a kingdom consisting of a number of lords i've already defined and fleshed out over this past year of constantly playing around in this world, there is no room left for new nobles to be created from scratch because each noble already exists and already has predefined levels of power within the greater kingdom hierarchies and also predefined parcels of land that they govern. Something as simple as adding a new noble to that kingdom just... wouldn't work because they don't already exist. And having them play one of the existing nobles without fully knowing or realizing their true character, true motivations, true loyalties, etc could mess with the story as well. They don't know this stuff, even out of character, because discovering these things is part of the fun.

I know that sounds kind of control freaky but there's just no way that would work in either of the games I currently run. I handcraft those worlds for specific purpose and like having a lot of subtle foreshadowing that can come in a large variety of flavors. I suppose I could start yet another game and not take it quite as seriously as one of my long duration projects that I put a lot of thought into, but it still rolls back to the fact that I don't really want to DM yet another game, I just want to be a player.

I absolutely love building worlds and creating backstories and histories for my many NPCs and improving things on the spot and making new characters at the drop of a hat and so on and so forth. It is a load of fun for me. But sometimes I just want to switch off and be a player. The biggest thing I want is to EXPLORE. That is the biggest shame, even if I played a DMPC in my own games, even if I made it act completely in character and not use any OOC knowledge (as I do with all my NPCs), it wouldn't change the fact that as a player I already know everything. I know where the dungeons are, I know who the real villains are, I know who the lackeys and red herrings are, I know where everything is located. There is no sense of adventure when you already know everything and while I could easily roleplay my character not knowing, it's just not as good as actually being in the dark. I like putting my mind to the task of solving puzzles instead of creating them, coming up with ideas to get around encounters or turn the tables to give us the advantage, or speculating on characters and their motivations. I like picking out NPCs who are villains or monsters in disguise and am quite good at it. It's fun to learn things, explore new worlds, and so on.

It's like being the Q vs being Captain Kirk. Yeah godlike power is nice and all, but it gets boring sometimes, I totally understand and respect Q's need to mess with mortals just to keep his sanity in an otherwise boring existence. Mortals on the other hand never know what's coming and have to use their wits and intuition to get by. I just want a world I can play in where my choices actually matter. Where there are secrets to actually discover and find that aren't force fed to me because the plot demands it. Where the NPCs have personalities and lives outside of Random Blacksmith, at the forge ready to craft for you 24/7. I feel like i'll never get it. :(

All I ever seem to get are railroads with forcefed plots, DM's who think the only way to have a fun campaign is to intentionally make every single encounter have the potential to be instantly killed by one bad roll (or good roll from an enemy) or worse yet the people who use those ridiculously thought up fumble charts that have stupid things on them like you somehow screwed up your sword attack against this large ogre so badly you accidently cut your own sword hand off... Somehow..? Oy. I mean come on people you have to realize if you have a 1 in 20 chance to maim yourself everytime you roll a dice, why are you encouraged to ever roll that dice? Classes that roll them a lot like fighters or monks get absolutely shafted by that kind of system. I mean i've maimed and dismembered players before, but only when they were doing something very risky and/or foolish, not just because they rolled a number that occurs 5% of the time. That is a bad system. I'm glad the real world doesn't work that way... We'd still live in caves if every time you used a tool you had a 5% chance to maim or blind yourself somehow, despite being proficient and well versed in it's use. But I digress...

[Citan]

DMPCs are a sign of a novice DM at best. If this DM has been DMing for while and still uses them don't just walk from that game. Run.
Woah. Thanks for this totally meaningless assessment. Being a good DM and having DMPC are completely different thigs.
You can pretty well run things without either overshadowing the "real" players nor let precious information slip because your players are pressuring you hard to metagame by asking your DMPC to do or decide things.

Maybe you told this because of several bad experiences as a player, or because you realized that yourself as a DM do not succeed in staying within safe boundaries (which I congrat you for should it be the case), but what you said is simply untrue.



Oh another thing I forgot to mention, this is one of those DM's who has their own PC in the party. And guess what? It is higher level than everyone else and knows everything because of DM meta knowledge so it detects all the traps, finds all the secrets, and so on. I don't believe this is some temporary NPC character either, it is treated like a full fledged member of the party. That is another thing I find a bit repulsive.

Why would you have any freedom? Just kidding. XD
Your feelings are totally legitimate.
You are not playing a tabletop RPG with friends and a DM.
You are being played as assets to highlight your DM's great, heroic adventures. Basically you are as NPC for him.

That is... Very bad. Frankly, from what I gather, there is little chance for the situation to improve. So since you don't feel any joy in playing with them anymore, I'd just go to the next session to politely but firmly announcing your retirement, and work together with your team to make the change as smooth as possible for them. Especially if the rest of the group is enjoying themselves, you should try and manage to have as little impact as possible.
Good luck.

[PoeticDwarf]

I DM 2 different games each week and I like it, my players like it, and while i've heard stories about players who stop showing up or stop wanting to participate, that hasn't happened to me. My players tend to stick around for up to an hour usually after the game is over just talking about everything that happened, sometimes we've spent as much as 3 additional hours just discussing everything after the fact. They all seem to enjoy it.

I like being a DM, I find it to be a fun and creative outlet and I keep the game within the rules unless they just don't make sense for one reason or another or sometimes i'll fudge them a little in the player's favor just to add more fun, excitement, or whatever to the game. However, I also like just relaxing and being a player sometimes so I can just show up and improvise the whole thing without worrying about it.

However, I have played in a dozen games ran by other people, and while I love to roleplay and play within the worlds and so on, I always get into a situation where I cannot stand the DM. I feel like there are just a ton of "bad" DM's out there. They change the game rules on the fly to suit the situation, they disallow things that should work, make things completely impossible. For example in one game we were sent to get a crown but it was stuck to the king's head (after he died). We couldn't remove it with strength checks, even a natural 20 one that was rolled, so we decided it must be enchanted or something to prevent it from being taken off. So we decided we'd just cut the king's head off and bring the whole head with us until we had time to identify the crown's properties. The DM basically responded, "Uh... I didn't think about that... uh... His neck has a forcefield, you can't hit it with your blade.." to which I facepalmed and just immediately stopped interacting. When crap like that happens, it becomes painfully clear you're on the railroad and have to do exactly as the DM predetermined before the game even started and your actions literally DO NOT MATTER because no matter what happens or what you do, nothing will work except the specific path he laid out which is going to happen regardless. So I was annoyed. And things like that happen a lot. DM's never improvise, they never allow player freedom, they just stick to it like it's a script to a movie and if it doesn't play out exactly as they imagined they won't let it happen at all. To me, it makes it feel pointless to even play because the game is no longer about your imagination, your creativity, or even the luck of the dice, it is instead a scripted play you're just riding along with.

So my most recent issue was, in a different game, I was playing a paladin and our party was exploring a sewer system. We ran into a field of magical darkness that none of us could see through that was just inexplicably there. But I didn't have a problem with that, I said that's fine, whatever. I used divine sense to try to detect any undead within 60 feet, DM said there were none. So I stepped into the darkness and was IMMEDIATELY attacked by creatures. When we finally used the daylight spell to reveal the area, they were practically zombies. They were humanoid creatures sewn together from parts of corpses, somehow it didn't register on divine sense. Alright. Story moves on a bit, while we're in this same sewer we run into an old man walking around acting senile who we had just witnessed disarm one of the traps that nearly killed half our party an hour earlier. I suspected he was some sort of villain, because some crazy old man isn't going to survive in this place full of zombies and werewolves, but I had no hard evidence, not enough to act on aside from my hunch. I used divine sense on him, he didn't register as undead or fiend. I questioned him, rolled natural 20 on two different insight checks, and DM told me he was telling the truth and I believed him.

No more than an hour later we ended up fighting this guy and it turns out he WAS undead, he WAS lying, and so on. At that point I basically just shut down. I stopped trying to roleplay or really interact, I lost all interest in playing. What is the point? If critical rolls don't mean anything, if class features don't work, I mean honestly what is the bloody point? It's like being led around on a leash and nothing can happen unless it is "supposed" to happen.

The whole reason I enjoy playing D&D is because of the FREEDOM and CREATIVITY and the limitless possibilities of it. It's why I enjoy it more than playing video game RPGs because those games are restricted and limited in what you can do, how you progress, where you go, and so on. D&D is supposed to be open and free form, but these bad DM's want to design everything to be a monorail track where no matter what you do, it doesn't change anything.

So am I just being unreasonable for expecting more than this? Are most games like this? I might as well stick to DMing and not bother trying to play anymore. I find it VERY telling that my players are so involved in the story and their characters and all have a great time while these other people have to constantly replace people that quit on them.

The DMs just seem pretty bad. You sound as a good DM and could maybe try to help them and explain how it could better for everyone

[DragonSorcererX]

These guys you described are awful! I think that I feel exactly the contrary when I am DMing than what those guys feel, I feel that the players (myself as a DMPC Healer and my friend's character) are too weak to fight the stuff that I made up and I want my player to be creative when fighting obstacles like: They need to pick a lock, they have at least two ways to do it, the boring standard way of Thieve's Tools or the cool way of BOOOOOM!!!

[Dalebert]

Good DMs tend to have higher standards for the DMs they play under. I can be an annoying player because I correct people a lot. I know the rules better than most. I suspect most of the regular users here know what I'm talking about. We're more thoughtful about all these rules while many players are more casual. Many DMs are fairly casual as well. I apologize for it and call it a reflex to correct people when they make mistakes, which it is. Most of the time it ends up hurting me like when a fellow player tries something that's not allowed. I try to be tactful about it, e.g. "That's not technically legal... unless the DM wants to allow it." Other times a monster will do something illegal and I've been known to suggest legal alternatives that end up even worse for us. Knowing the rules is a blessing and a curse.

[Belac93]

You've got it bad.

My players have the opposite problem. I can't plan for ****. Any plan I have ends up being destroyed by the PCs, so I improvise everything. My players enjoy it, but they do want an actual plot for once.

That level of railroading is ridiculous! Who can't plan for something like that? If they roll a natural 20 for a strength check, have the player then roll a Dexterity check to avoid stumbling out the window as they rip the king's head off with enough force to make them lose their balance. Or make the corpse animate and jump out the window (added benefit of introducing the new villain, a pixie necromancer who lives inside the kings hollow cranium).

Anyway, keep looking for a good DM, they can't all be bad. Best of luck!

[Officer Joy]

Could you ask one of the players you DM for to run a game? Clearly they have a great example to try an emulate?

[DwarvenGM]

The examples you gave were pretty bad (except the stitched together corpses those were most likely flesh golems and thus not undead)

BUT you should remember that everyone starts out as a inexperienced, if not crappy, dm and holding them to your standard is very unfair.

A lot of DM's lack the time to create an immersive world like yours or study the rules enough to know them by heart. I know I work 70…-80 hours a week and run a 5e and a mutants and masterminds minds game. So if I didn't already have a firm understanding of d20 rule systems it might be difficult for me to run a game. Hell I'm trying to learn Godlike but I can only read the book a little at a time so it is a little tricky.

Be understanding and try to help. Hell offer to co-dm and give them all kinds of tips and tricks. Our hobby lives on by us passing our knowledge. All my dm skills I learned by playing with various dms I stole what I like about their style discard what I didn't.

[90sMusic]

You've got it bad.

My players have the opposite problem. I can't plan for ****. Any plan I have ends up being destroyed by the PCs, so I improvise everything. My players enjoy it, but they do want an actual plot for once.

That level of railroading is ridiculous! Who can't plan for something like that? If they roll a natural 20 for a strength check, have the player then roll a Dexterity check to avoid stumbling out the window as they rip the king's head off with enough force to make them lose their balance. Or make the corpse animate and jump out the window (added benefit of introducing the new villain, a pixie necromancer who lives inside the kings hollow cranium).

Anyway, keep looking for a good DM, they can't all be bad. Best of luck!

I understand what you mean. I treat my world kind of like ... I guess the best way to describe it would be kind of like playing Skyrim. You have "the main storyline quest chain", except I tend to have about 3 of these up most of the time so they can pick and choose, then the rest are just sort of optional sidequest type stuff they can do at their leisure and I tend to create just on the spot. So they have a clear progressive story to follow to move the overall world plot forward but they aren't chained to it. I also don't really spell out for them "this is a main quest", they just have to sort of piece it together based on what their current goals are and things they need, etc. I think it makes for a more realistic and entertaining experience and they agree. I also never have coincidences. You don't just happen to bump into the main villain in the middle of town the first time you go there. I know his schedule, where he is going to be at any given time of day, his various activities, locations he visits, who he speaks with, and sometimes players might get lucky and run into him but I never make that a scripted encounter that WILL happen regardless. Sometimes they have to put their nose to the ground and dig up information, ask around, get led to other people, and so on. They like to investigate. The trick is, I don't treat it like quests at all, I treat everyone like real people. I mean John Smith off the street isn't going to know the lord of town's dirty little secrets. He "might" have heard some of the more obvious rumors around town but there are a lot of factors for that sort of thing. His profession, where he works, where he lives, where he goes to drink, etc.



Could you ask one of the players you DM for to run a game? Clearly they have a great example to try an emulate?


Funny you should mention that, because one of the players is actually planning his own campaign soon. They want to play it with the same group of people because we all like playing together, but he is wrestling with the idea because in his own words "If we could all get together a second time each week, why wouldn't we just play this one more?" His campaign is in a radically different setting. He's going to make it sort of prehistoric with primitive weapons, variations on all the races to fit the theme and so on. I've been helping him develop some of the concepts to an extent, but I don't want to be involved with any of the story-related stuff because I don't want to know it in advance. But we've made halflings into a kind of monkey-people who live in the trees, gnomes are like pygmys living in the jungles, dragonborn are instead part dinosaur instead of part dragon, dwarves are like more primitive folks living in caves while humans are the slightly more evolved kind that have started living in small communities in primitive structures they made from wood and animal skins, etc. There's a whole different feel to it.

Supposedly we'll start playing it in another few weeks while he's making some final homebrew rules and the like. I think it'll be fun and fresh and interesting, don't get me wrong. It sounds like it will be a good time, but I tend to prefer the standard medieval sort of setting. I do hope it's a good time, and I hope he enjoys being the DM as well. :) I feel like I could help him improve better than one of the other guys I mentioned earlier because he actually comes to me to ask questions and ask for my advice and opinion. The "established" DMs do not, and i'm not the type to really go up to them and start telling them their business. So far the only things i've really said to them was certain aspects of their game was making me unhappy, and I told them why that was.




As far as the flesh golem/undead situation, I suppose it's my fault for leaving out additional information there. I thought the way I explained it originally would've been an indicator that they were actually undead rather than I just assumed they were, but instead folks decided to use what I posted and say it was actually a flesh golem, so let me explain. When we first encountered these creatures, I thought flesh golem as well when divine sense didn't pick them up (this was one of the earlier encounters in the game, so at this point I still trusted the DM), so I didn't think anything of it even though they were moaning and acting verymuch like zombies. We actually found the sanctum where these things were being created and found all of the undead parts laying around used in their construction and there were books full of notes and research regarding how the things were made, what their purpose was, and so on. No one else wanted to touch the books because they were bound in human skin, but I picked them up and flipped through them and found out they were indeed undead, not golems. They were created by sewing these various pieces together and they were animated through negative energy and essentially turned into undead as a result of the process. The notes of the book it's self clearly indicated they were undead creatures as well as the fact golems are made by a completely different process that has nothing to do with negative energy and instead involves binding an elemental spirit of some sort to the construct. At least typically, DM fiat and all that. But even within the lore of the world it's self, they were in fact undead.

So you can see why I didn't write the entire story of every event that transpired in the campaign, it would take a long time. But they were undead and not being registered. The "boss" villain was undead and not being registered. Basically my divine sense has detected literally nothing in my character's lifetime despite being surrounded by all manner of undead entities. That and the fact my critical rolls still yielded failures on insight was extremely disappointing, disheartening, and killed my desire to play.

[Mrglee]

Critical rolls on skill checks don't actually do anything special. They are just high rolls. If you fail the DC you fail the DC. Magic aura has already been brought up as a reasonable and intelligent way to dodge divine sense, which I would smart mindful undead would do.
That being said, if the whole campaign is literally just invaliding class features, that is kinda terrible.

[ATHATH]

Actually, the crown thing is understandable, although it should have been handled by the DM telling the players that not taking off the crown was essential to the plot when they rolled that natural 20.

In the case of the secretly-undead guy situation: Was the DM following an adventure path? He might not have read ahead far enough to know that the guy was indeed an undead creature.

Alternatively, an undead creature might have secretly replaced the real guy between your visits with him.

[Sigreid]

So, the last thing I can think to add for the OP is when you're a player you have to be prepared to take the game as it is, not as you hope it will be. It's ok to make suggestions to the DM, but a couple of sessions in you just have to decide whether it's something you can live with, or not.

Also, your player that kinda wants to run a game, but doesn't feel he can compete with your campaign, express to him how much you would like to just play and that you would hugely appreciate playing in his world and look forward to seeing him as a DM. I'd further recommend that you tell him that starting out as a DM is hard and not to be disappointed if things don't initially go as he expects, and that you'd be happy to talk with him after or between sessions if he wants another perspective on how things were handled. Be very encouraging and not discouraging. You have the chance here to maybe raise your own DM. :)

[BobTheOrc]

That is an unfair characterization. I often run a DMPC that plays by the PCs rules, does not use meta knowledge, and does not steal the show. I happen to be a phenomenal DM running a PsuedoSandbox world with what amounts to a waiting list of people wanting in on my IRL game <blah blah blah>...

I think it is a fair characterization. I can't claim to know anything about how you DM, but running a DMPC does three things: 1) It distracts you from your job as the DM. 2) It tempts you to bend the story in ways that benefit your PC. 3) Even if neither of the first two are true, it gives your players a valid reason to question your impartiality.

In general, it is a bad idea. If it is working for you, great, but there is no point in bragging how popular your games are -- we can't validate it and it doesn't really matter to people in a forum who aren't playing with you. The advice against running a DMPC is quite common and anyone who has DMed a while should be able to see why.

[Zman]

I think it is a fair characterization. I can't claim to know anything about how you DM, but running a DMPC does three things: 1) It distracts you from your job as the DM. 2) It tempts you to bend the story in ways that benefit your PC. 3) Even if neither of the first two are true, it gives your players a valid reason to question your impartiality.

In general, it is a bad idea. If it is working for you, great, but there is no point in bragging how popular your games are -- we can't validate it and it doesn't really matter to people in a forum who aren't playing with you. The advice against running a DMPC is quite common and anyone who has DMed a while should be able to see why.

No, saying it is a mark of a bad DM is an unfair characterization, which it is as it is spoken as absolute and in inherently a flawed assumption. My argument is that a good DM will be more more than capable of running a game with a DMPC and that a bad DM will run into many pitfalls, though their game would be bad with the DMPC's presents or without it.

It wasn't bragging, merely stating a fact about my game. I run them and have no problems and given the sampling of DMs I've experienced in my years of gaming I'm the best of the bunch.

[mgshamster]

A DM doesn't need an DMPC; they have all the NPCs they could ever want. The only time when a DMPC is ever really justified is when a group routinely rotates GMs, so a player's PC becomes a DMPC when it's their turn to GM.

Other than that, it's not needed. Including it in the game only serves to detract from the game and GM duties. At best, it's indistinguishable from an NPC (so why have it?). At worst, it becomes the focal point of the game to the point where the actual PCs are just side characters, the DM bends the rules for their own special character, and it ruins their enjoyment of the game.

When the best you get is indistinguishable from an NPC, there's no real point* of having a DMPC. Just run an NPC. Unless your DMPC is indistinguishable from an NPC, then your character is detracting from the game and making your DM'ing worse than it could be.

*The one exception is mentioned above.

[uraniumrooster]

No, saying it is a mark of a bad DM is an unfair characterization, which it is as it is spoken as absolute and in inherently a flawed assumption. My argument is that a good DM will be more more than capable of running a game with a DMPC and that a bad DM will run into many pitfalls, though their game would be bad with the DMPC's presents or without it.

I agree, and don't think there's anything wrong with DMPCs in general. I use them occasionally, if they're a part of the story or if I think the party needs help filling a certain role. Adding a DMPC to the mix gives me more freedom to put together harder encounters, especially if I'm running for a smallish group. However, I treat them as essentially NPCs that are along for the ride, taking a back seat to the actual Player Characters (unless the story requires that the DMPC take the lead, but in that case there's an in character explanation and its usually a temporary situation).


Oh another thing I forgot to mention, this is one of those DM's who has their own PC in the party. And guess what? It is higher level than everyone else and knows everything because of DM meta knowledge so it detects all the traps, finds all the secrets, and so on.

A situation like this is really not okay. Nobody like a Mary Sue, but when the Mary Sue belongs to the DM, that's just... ugh.

I guess there's a chance it could be an intentional bait-and-switch (the apparently faultless Mary Sue DMPC leads the PCs into the Woeful Forest of DOOM, easily dispatching any dangers along the way while the PCs are seemingly just along for the ride... until the DM's secret plan comes to fruition and he kills his own DMPC deep inside enemy territory, at which point the PCs' false sense of security gets shattered and their real adventure begins). Based on the other events OP described, that seems unlikely though.

I'd stick it out for a couple sessions, and, as others have said, talk to the DM and maybe try to give them some pointers based on your own experience as a DM. If it continues without any signs of improvement though, I'd respectfully leave. It's a game, after all, and if you're not enjoying yourself then what's the point?

[Zman]

A DM doesn't need an DMPC; they have all the NPCs they could ever want. The only time when a DMPC is ever really justified is when a group routinely rotates GMs, so a player's PC becomes a DMPC when it's their turn to GM.

Other than that, it's not needed. Including it in the game only serves to detract from the game and GM duties. At best, it's indistinguishable from an NPC (so why have it?). At worst, it becomes the focal point of the game to the point where the actual PCs are just side characters, the DM bends the rules for their own special character, and it ruins their enjoyment of the game.

When the best you get is indistinguishable from an NPC, there's no real point* of having a DMPC. Just run an NPC. Unless your DMPC is indistinguishable from an NPC, then your character is detracting from the game and making your DM'ing worse than it could be.

*The one exception is mentioned above.

Again, I am going to disagree with a black and white outlook like this. It is entirely possible for a DMPC to be created with all the rules a normal PC follows and to be run without DM Metaknowledge just as players can make IC decisions without using Metaknowledge and to give no special treatment to the DMPC. If a DM can't run a DMPC without ruining the game, how are they going to run the BBEG without ruining the game? A very common reason for this is to add a fourth or fifth member to the party or to fulfill a missing niche.

What is your definition of NPC or DMPC? See, I see a DM running an NPC they "created" for them in the game as far more dangerous than a DMPC, i.e. PC created with all the rules all PCs follow. NPCs don't follow those rules, so the risk of creating an NPC that outshines the party is much higher.

I see the "DMs control the world and all NPCs, so why do they want or need a character?" As a poor argument. NPCs are rarely reoccurring and generally don't grow with the party, a DMPC plays by the rules and expectations of a normal PC, it grows and evolves and interacts with the world just as a PC does.

The main reason I run a DMPC is because I never get to play in quality games, I haven't played a character in a long running game where I actually gained multiple levels since roughly 2008. Part of that was IRL games not being possible and necessitated PBP, which I've run the longest most successful games I've encountered. I've tried joining games on here and found them to simply not last or the quality of DMing to be atrocious. It boils down to if I want a good game, I have to run it and I'd occasionally would like to build a character and see them grow throughout the game. I don't DM because I love DMing and don't want to play, it is because I'm damn good at it and it's the only way to get a high quality game with a good chance of being successful.

Is it so hard to believe a DMPC can play by the same rules as other PCs and be played without using Metaknowledge? To contribute to a party without stealing the show, or without solving every riddle, or come up with bad advice based on the characters response to the situation? Is it so hard to believe that a DMPC can enhance a game and the quality of the gaming experience instead of being a hindrance by default?

[Zman]

I agree, and don't think there's anything wrong with DMPCs in general. I use them occasionally, if they're a part of the story or if I think the party needs help filling a certain role. Adding a DMPC to the mix gives me more freedom to put together harder encounters, especially if I'm running for a smallish group. However, I treat them as essentially NPCs that are along for the ride, taking a back seat to the actual Player Characters (unless the story requires that the DMPC take the lead, but in that case there's an in character explanation and its usually a temporary situation).



A situation like this is really not okay. Nobody like a Mary Sue, but when the Mary Sue belongs to the DM, that's just... ugh.

I guess there's a chance it could be an intentional bait-and-switch (the apparently faultless Mary Sue DMPC leads the PCs into the Woeful Forest of DOOM, easily dispatching any dangers along the way while the PCs are seemingly just along for the ride... until the DM's secret plan comes to fruition and he kills his own DMPC deep inside enemy territory, at which point the PCs' false sense of security gets shattered and their real adventure begins). Based on the other events OP described, that seems unlikely though.

I'd stick it out for a couple sessions, and, as others have said, talk to the DM and maybe try to give them some pointers based on your own experience as a DM. If it continues without any signs of improvement though, I'd respectfully leave. It's a game, after all, and if you're not enjoying yourself then what's the point?

I agree with essentially all of this. A DMPC, if run, should not steal the show, should never use Metaknowledge to come up with a magic bullet, and should be careful not to step on the toes of the players.


And I definitely agree with everything you said, no body likes a Mary Sue, and a DMPC Mary Sue is the worst. But, any DM that would run a Mary Sue DMPC is a terrible DM to begin with and would find a plethora of other ways to ruin their game. A good DM is more than capable of running a DMPC, a bad DM would ruin a game without one but one will make their deficiencies painfully obvious.

[BobTheOrc]

It wasn't bragging, merely stating a fact about my game. I run them and have no problems and given the sampling of DMs I've experienced in my years of gaming I'm the best of the bunch.

Facts that are asserted but unprovable don't do much for conversation. The rest of your assertion seems wrong for reasons I gave earlier, but you are of course free to run your games as you like...

[Zman]

Facts that are asserted but unprovable don't do much for conversation. The rest of your assertion seems wrong for reasons I gave earlier, but you are of course free to run your games as you like...

You are free to dig up the multi year successful game that I ran on these forums that had many thousands of IC posts before I passed it off due to IRL comcerns. I ran a DMPC in that game with no problems. Guess that's provable.... Anyway, it was an unfair characterization that deals in absolutes and it by default,morons. You are free to perpetuate your badwrongfun judgements, although it is in bad form.

[quzar]

I guess there's a chance it could be an intentional bait-and-switch (the apparently faultless Mary Sue DMPC leads the PCs into the Woeful Forest of DOOM, easily dispatching any dangers along the way while the PCs are seemingly just along for the ride... until the DM's secret plan comes to fruition and he kills his own DMPC deep inside enemy territory, at which point the PCs' false sense of security gets shattered and their real adventure begins). Based on the other events OP described, that seems unlikely though.

That seems like a wonderful idea that I'll use to screw with my players soon :) Thanks for it.

[Zalabim]

That seems like a wonderful idea that I'll use to screw with my players soon :) Thanks for it.

It doesn't have to be as direct as that, but it's basically the obviously-going-to-die mentor made less obvious. Maybe a lot less obvious.

I'm reminded of a small homebrew project set in a school when a vague disaster happens and the Teacher has this role in the game explicitly. At some point, they're going to die, disappear, or turn out to be evil/a monster.

[StealthyRobot]

Story from my first time as a DM.

I had created an epic adventure planned out from level 1 to 20, including every encounter and major npc interaction. During the first session, one of the players was supposed to be knocked unconcious by a poison arrow to recieve a vision. The monk said he could catch the arrow, as per monk rules, and I said the angle and positioning didn't allow. (In my mind this was completely true, the party didn't think so). So the gnome gets shot, and the monk sprints after the assassin with his extra movement. I wasn't planning on the assassin being caught, so he killed himself first. After the group received the prophecy, some members decided they wanted nothing to do with it. They set a trap in the woods and murdered half the party and an NPC involved in the prophecy. Them being my friends then told me what was done good and what was done horribly.

tl;dr: Derail the train as explosively possible, and then talk to them. Worked for me at least

Watching/laughing at sharknado afterwards helps eliminate any bitterness

[Citan]

I think it is a fair characterization. I can't claim to know anything about how you DM, but running a DMPC does three things: 1) It distracts you from your job as the DM. 2) It tempts you to bend the story in ways that benefit your PC. 3) Even if neither of the first two are true, it gives your players a valid reason to question your impartiality.

In general, it is a bad idea. If it is working for you, great, but there is no point in bragging how popular your games are -- we can't validate it and it doesn't really matter to people in a forum who aren't playing with you. The advice against running a DMPC is quite common and anyone who has DMed a while should be able to see why.
Well, yes, it is an unfair characterization, as most "black and white" assertions by the way.
1) How so? You have no obligation to be "active" as your PC everytime. In fact, depending on the group, you could very well only intervene when they entice you to do so.
2) Only because you would be self-centered. Absolutely no other sound reason could push a DM to favor its PC. And if a DM is self-centered, chances are that he will generally manage in a way that valorizes him instead of his players, even without DMPC (confer OP post, railroading the players into HIS plot instead of rewarding craftiness).
3) Confer point 2. There is no reason for players to question your impartiality if you treat their own suggestions and actions fairly nor try to actively make your PC resolve situations that your players's characters could resolve very well by themselves.


A DM doesn't need an DMPC; they have all the NPCs they could ever want. The only time when a DMPC is ever really justified is when a group routinely rotates GMs, so a player's PC becomes a DMPC when it's their turn to GM.

Other than that, it's not needed. Including it in the game only serves to detract from the game and GM duties. At best, it's indistinguishable from an NPC (so why have it?). At worst, it becomes the focal point of the game to the point where the actual PCs are just side characters, the DM bends the rules for their own special character, and it ruins their enjoyment of the game.

When the best you get is indistinguishable from an NPC, there's no real point* of having a DMPC. Just run an NPC. Unless your DMPC is indistinguishable from an NPC, then your character is detracting from the game and making your DM'ing worse than it could be.

*The one exception is mentioned above.
Nop, you're wrong. :)
A DMPC is quite useful every time you want a character that uses classes mechanics over some time (meaning he will evolve).
It also keeps neat the distinction between NPC as provided by the DMG and other sources, and the special builds you make for key players.
It can be for a "true" DMPC that will go along the party, to fill a vacant role (especially important in a 1-2 players party, unless each player is willing to and capable of playing 2 characters simultaneously -not so hard mechanically, but difficult for roleplay-), or it can be for a character that has its own goals and may stick along for some time before leaving or turning against the party.
Using characters with classes also help everyone assess what the character is good at and, precisely, avoid any suspicions from the players about being accompanied by a cheated character (which you could do much easier with a "custom NPC").
Exactly as using character classes for BBEG rewards players who will use hints to guess what it is then what it is capable of, and avoid any suspicions of custom, overly powerful BBEG.
Finally, in case a player dies, it gives him a potential option to keep playing instead or just starting a new character from scratch, or at least until his new players gets a coherent reason to be integrated to the group.

I'll leave you with a perfect example of DMPC, which a friend of mine used in a DD4 campaign with only me and another player (his only bending of rules was removing low stat limitation): a Barbarian dwarf, with insane strength, but INT so low (like, 4) that he was barely able to even speak, so expressed himself mainly with "Grumf" sounds (which then happened to become his name).
That's the perfect DMPC for the lazy DM: no way to speak = no risk of players pressuring or self giving tips away. And he didn't even get specially smart in battles: instead, he often rushed at the first enemy he saw, because it was in its blood... Making sometimes the battle more difficult that it could have been with tactical placement. :)
We never felt any cheating from our DM, nor any overshadowing (with me being a Wizard and my friend a Rogue, there was little chance anyways haha), and all had a blast throughout.

[mgshamster]

Fair points, Zman and Citan. I'll retract my statement.

Based on your combined points, a DMPC can be done well when one or more of the following occur:

Used in PBP (best opportunity to not take away game time; easiest to roleplay without giving away anything)
DMPC is gimped (removes chance of overshadowing the PCs)
DMPC isn't played intelligently and so can't know/share the plot or automatically know the DM's tactics

A DMPC may not actively detract from the game when it's used for rotating GM's or to fill in a slot for a small group.

Outside of that, I still believe that a DMPC can detract from a game, if only because it splits time the GM needs at the table (baring pbp, of course) and has a huge potential for overshadowing the rest of the players.

[Citan]

Fair points, Zman and Citan. I'll retract my statement.

Based on your combined points, a DMPC can be done well when one or more of the following occur:

Used in PBP (best opportunity to not take away game time; easiest to roleplay without giving away anything)
DMPC is gimped (removes chance of overshadowing the PCs)
DMPC isn't played intelligently and so can't know/share the plot or automatically know the DM's tactics

A DMPC may not actively detract from the game when it's used for rotating GM's or to fill in a slot for a small group.

Outside of that, I still believe that a DMPC can detract from a game, if only because it splits time the GM needs at the table (baring pbp, of course) and has a huge potential for overshadowing the rest of the players.
Hey, sorry for the stupid question, what does PBP stand for? An acronym where players are DMing in turn?
Also, I don't think that playing intelligently while keeping "in-track" is especially difficult. As long as you defined your character deeply enough to give him clear motives and values, it should drive the roleplay without any consideration for metagaming.

Anwyays, if you would be kind enough to wish me luck...
I'll soon be DMPCing a Bard (a multiclassed gish one, to boot). Which, considering your opinion on DMPCing, should rise a burning hot red flag! :smallbiggrin:

Well, to be honest, I won't brag, because you are right in that this will be an equilibrist exercise. But I intend to make it someone very self-centered and reserved (as, not wanting to be in the light always, but being globally indifferent to what happens), essentially preoccupied by his art and knowledge search, just following the party because, for now, it's in his interest (thus actually manifesting his natural charisma only when he plays music -or cast spells obviously-. Outside, he's so shy or condescendant that he will barely say a word).

This means he won't ever try to take the place of another player (unless it's because interests diverge so the player's solution would go against his own goal). In fact, my players will probably have to push it a bit when they need his help (except for encounters... Probably).^^
And it should (at least I hope so) disarm any try of my players to make him "do the best" for metagamy reasons, or at least provide me decent cover if it happens: if someone always either tell you nothing or obviously invents something on the fly, even on mundane topics such as where you went the day earlier or what he wants to do today, you would probably not rely on him for information. :)

Oh, by the way, another case where there is no way DMPC can overshadow your players: when your campaign derailed already so much that you are improvising as you go since a long time ago, and probably for a longer time to come...:smallbiggrin:
Which is, fortunately or not, my current situation as you probably guessed... XD. What started as a mini-quest for introducing players to each others blew up in a grand way... But well, what can I say? I always love when the players are creative, so, I can't bear to hard-track them, and any more subtle try always end in an imprevisible fashion (although I allow this partly because only 2 players... Still manageable ;))...

[mgshamster]

Quick response: it stands for play-by-post. It's a type of Internet gaming.

[mgshamster]

Hey, sorry for the stupid question, what does PBP stand for? An acronym where players are DMing in turn?
Also, I don't think that playing intelligently while keeping "in-track" is especially difficult. As long as you defined your character deeply enough to give him clear motives and values, it should drive the roleplay without any consideration for metagaming.

Anwyays, if you would be kind enough to wish me luck...
I'll soon be DMPCing a Bard (a multiclassed gish one, to boot). Which, considering your opinion on DMPCing, should rise a burning hot red flag! :smallbiggrin:

Well, to be honest, I won't brag, because you are right in that this will be an equilibrist exercise. But I intend to make it someone very self-centered and reserved (as, not wanting to be in the light always, but being globally indifferent to what happens), essentially preoccupied by his art and knowledge search, just following the party because, for now, it's in his interest (thus actually manifesting his natural charisma only when he plays music -or cast spells obviously-. Outside, he's so shy or condescendant that he will barely say a word).

This means he won't ever try to take the place of another player (unless it's because interests diverge so the player's solution would go against his own goal). In fact, my players will probably have to push it a bit when they need his help (except for encounters... Probably).^^
And it should (at least I hope so) disarm any try of my players to make him "do the best" for metagamy reasons, or at least provide me decent cover if it happens: if someone always either tell you nothing or obviously invents something on the fly, even on mundane topics such as where you went the day earlier or what he wants to do today, you would probably not rely on him for information. :)

Oh, by the way, another case where there is no way DMPC can overshadow your players: when your campaign derailed already so much that you are improvising as you go since a long time ago, and probably for a longer time to come...:smallbiggrin:
Which is, fortunately or not, my current situation as you probably guessed... XD. What started as a mini-quest for introducing players to each others blew up in a grand way... But well, what can I say? I always love when the players are creative, so, I can't bear to hard-track them, and any more subtle try always end in an imprevisible fashion (although I allow this partly because only 2 players... Still manageable ;))...

Best of luck! I truly hope it works out well for you and your group.

Another way to improve on the DMPC is to get regular feedback from your group. Every few sessions, ask them their opinion of the DMPC and if they feel overshadowed or annoyed by it - if so, you can dial it back a bit. Or perhaps they really love it and wish it played a more active role, then you can dial it up a bit. The key is open and honest communication with a willingness to adapt to new input for a better experience.

Thinking about it - that's decent advice for any aspect of the game (and life in general). In one of my PBP games, I'm running a chase scene, and I get the feeling that some of my players are annoyed by it (5e chase rules are kind of odd). At the end of it, I'm planning on asking for their opinion and analysis of the rules for the chase scene.

I think as long as you're doing that, it won't be an issue - and will likey even improve your game and GMing skills. :)

[Vogonjeltz]

No more than an hour later we ended up fighting this guy and it turns out he WAS undead, he WAS lying, and so on. At that point I basically just shut down. I stopped trying to roleplay or really interact, I lost all interest in playing. What is the point? If critical rolls don't mean anything, if class features don't work, I mean honestly what is the bloody point? It's like being led around on a leash and nothing can happen unless it is "supposed" to happen.

I'm totally on board about it being poor form for a DM to act as if features that should work don't work, or to blatantly railroad the players for the sake of some story goal. Retroactive story rewrites because of player choices are simply the worst thing a DM can do to their players.

Advice for new DMs: If your players thought of something that you didn't account for, don't try to come up with a reason it doesn't work, just think about what would happen as a natural result. If you (DMs) really want them (players) to arrive at a particular location/event, you don't have to make it painfully obvious.

That being said, there's no such thing as a 'critical roll' for ability checks. 1 and 20 are just another number when it comes to those kinds of checks.


Unfortunate, but maybe the alternative was ending the campaign then and there. Maybe the whole plot hinged on it, and you had two options: accepting the DM's spur-of-the-moment fix, or packing up and going home. Personally, I'd go along with it.

If the plot hinges on the players taking a specific action (or not attempting some specific action) it's a badly written plot.


You don't have to see them. It reveals undead that are not behind "total cover". In other words, it would make you aware of any undead that are staring at you through the eyeholes in a painting.

That would be an example of total cover. The next lowest type of cover is 3/4 when 3/4 of the body is covered.

That aside, if enemies are merely lurking in darkness (and they are the correct type) I'd probably give it to the player with no hesitation.

[Citan]

Best of luck! I truly hope it works out well for you and your group.

Another way to improve on the DMPC is to get regular feedback from your group. Every few sessions, ask them their opinion of the DMPC and if they feel overshadowed or annoyed by it - if so, you can dial it back a bit. Or perhaps they really love it and wish it played a more active role, then you can dial it up a bit. The key is open and honest communication with a willingness to adapt to new input for a better experience.

Thinking about it - that's decent advice for any aspect of the game (and life in general). In one of my PBP games, I'm running a chase scene, and I get the feeling that some of my players are annoyed by it (5e chase rules are kind of odd). At the end of it, I'm planning on asking for their opinion and analysis of the rules for the chase scene.

I think as long as you're doing that, it won't be an issue - and will likey even improve your game and GMing skills. :)
Well, we always do a debriefing after the session anyways. ;) Which is much needed for me because I know I'm lacking in many aspects still (not even accounting for my struggle with Roll20... Not that it is a bad plaform, but some shortcomings are really annoying).
As you say, this should be like a reflex for any DM anyway (and it's also fun to reflect on the best and worse times of the session, like situations being totally turned over for the better or the worse just because of a critical roll ^^).

And to add a bit of fuel to your fire, I chose to do this only because it's these players and this "permanent improvisation" campaign. I'm comfortable enough with them, and them with me, to tell me immediately if there is something out of the way (or better, sometimes, roleplaying it through their characters ^^) and since it's improvisation, the metagaming is very low: the current quest they are revolve around a "class NPC", which has no definite destiny. I'm nearly a spectator for now, just trying to "resolve" their actions in a coherent way within the settings frame I set. Although there is an ending I'd prefer, I won't prevent them taking the "worse" ending if they want^^. I may not even have to bring the Bard in (just ready in case they need a support/healer). :)

[Zman]

Best of luck! I truly hope it works out well for you and your group.

Another way to improve on the DMPC is to get regular feedback from your group. Every few sessions, ask them their opinion of the DMPC and if they feel overshadowed or annoyed by it - if so, you can dial it back a bit. Or perhaps they really love it and wish it played a more active role, then you can dial it up a bit. The key is open and honest communication with a willingness to adapt to new input for a better experience.

Thinking about it - that's decent advice for any aspect of the game (and life in general). In one of my PBP games, I'm running a chase scene, and I get the feeling that some of my players are annoyed by it (5e chase rules are kind of odd). At the end of it, I'm planning on asking for their opinion and analysis of the rules for the chase scene.

I think as long as you're doing that, it won't be an issue - and will likey even improve your game and GMing skills. :)

Open and honest communication is key. I often as how my players feel about the game, how I handled a particular situation, or if they object to something. Honestly, one thing that has popped up is that they always want enemies to keep attacking my DMPC, not because they feel like he isn't attacked enough, but that he often is an AC tank(only "tank" in the party") with Blurr up and they want to abuse that fact, even if an enemy would rather ignore it or is taking damage from a much lower defensive enemy.

As long as you are communicating freely with the group, receptive to criticism, and not showing favoritism you greatly reduce the likelihood of most problems.

[Citan]

Open and honest communication is key.

As long as you are communicating freely with the group, receptive to criticism, and not showing favoritism you greatly reduce the likelihood of most problems.
That. 100% THAT.:smallsmile:

[Mandragola]

I don't think that DMPCs are necessarily a problem, but they can be, and there are some real pitfalls.

The example of the tank illustrates the problem. If the players don't trust your reasons not to hit your own PC then it doesn't really matter if the reasons are good or not. But every round you have to make a decision on who to attack. If the players don't trust you everyone will have less fun.

You're putting yourself in a position with a conflict of interest, whether or not you actually give preference to your own character. I personally would rather not give myself that problem. There's just no need to - you just design encounters that work for the party you have.

There's a difference between playing a permanent PC in the group and having occasional NPCs tag along. Most often this can be done with someone like a healer, or with an NPC who needs to be escorted for some reason. If you really want to play a persistent character, make them a non-combatant who the players need to bring with them for some reason (eg he's paying them).

[Zman]

I don't think that DMPCs are necessarily a problem, but they can be, and there are some real pitfalls.

The example of the tank illustrates the problem. If the players don't trust your reasons not to hit your own PC then it doesn't really matter if the reasons are good or not. But every round you have to make a decision on who to attack. If the players don't trust you everyone will have less fun.

You're putting yourself in a position with a conflict of interest, whether or not you actually give preference to your own character. I personally would rather not give myself that problem. There's just no need to - you just design encounters that work for the party you have.

There's a difference between playing a permanent PC in the group and having occasional NPCs tag along. Most often this can be done with someone like a healer, or with an NPC who needs to be escorted for some reason. If you really want to play a persistent character, make them a non-combatant who the players need to bring with them for some reason (eg he's paying them).

You are misunderstanding the situation, they aren't questioning my motives with the character being a DMPC, they want me as DM to take actions that they know from a meta perspective to be beneficial to them and not in line with how the enemies would normally act. It is no different than the Wizard wanting me to arbitrarily group the enemies together for his fireball. It has absolutely nothing to do with trusting my impartiality. If there is any disparity it is on the side of being harsher to the DMPC than the party.

As to just building encounters for the party you have, well I return to my point that I never get to play in games and have to DM and would like to see a character level and evolve. Just being a DM is less fun for me and feels more like work and ultimately makes the game less good. In this way having a DMPC in the party, along with rounding the group out, has enhanced our overall game and not been a detriment to it.