Hopeing for some advice: My D&D group is planning to kill the DMPC...

[JohnRidd]

So, a group of friends and I are planning to start D&D pretty soon. We're all pretty new, I think I'm the only one who has played before and that's only a few sessions. Anyway, our DM has created himself a DMPC, which he plans to mostly use as an NPC who travels with the party but will be involved in battle to a degree. When we have our first session, two of our players are trying to recruit the other three of us to help murder the DMPC as soon as introductions are made, as the general consensus in the group of players is that the DM shouldn't have a PC. Which, in general I agree that a DMPC usually is a bad idea, but I'm not so keen on doing the whole murdering thing(especially as my PC is a Paladin). Like I said, we're all pretty much brand new to RPG's, and I think the DM is partially wanting to play a character for the first time. I'm halfway tempted to take over the DM'ing, if this is the way things are going to go, I'd just need to do some work to find a story or campaign or whatever, because I like the idea of doing the whole DM thing, I just don't have all the rules and stuff like our current DM-to-be does. To be honest, I'm kind of torn between talking to our DM privately and just watching the murdering go down(just because it would be kinda funny, if you were to know our particular group of players). But I feel like the right thing to do would probably be to speak to the DM in private about it, I guess. Not exactly sure how to bring the matter up to the DM, and what exactly to say. Should I just talk to him about not creating a DMPC in general and avoid the murder-y bits? Or should I tell him about the plot on the DMPC's life and try to convince him not to go that route by telling him all of that?

[GlenSmash!]

An out of character conversation with the DM about why your partymates don't like DMPCs is a far better way to handle it. Talk about it like adults.

I ran a DMPC for my first 3-4 sessions as a DM because I just didn't want to give up being a player. I still would rather be a player, but I won't run a DMPC again. It doesn't make the game better for me or anyone else.

[gfishfunk]

Talk to the DM and suggest no DMPC.

This looks like the sort of thing that will end up pissing off someone and dissolving the group immediately.

A DMPC is only as bad as it is intrusive. All NPCs are DMPCs, some are aligned with the PCs even.

[lunaticfringe]

Accept the DMPCs inevitable demise, mourn them in private, plot sweet sweet revenge on those poor bastards. That's what a good DM would do. It's not your job to police other PCs, just disagree with the plan. Paladin's don't have to be Good or Nice in 5e, they just have to follow their Code.

[MrStabby]

Well it may depend on the DM and their DMPC.

If it is just a short term character who will act a s a plot hook and how they know/should trust some other characters important to the plot then it is just a tool to get the ball rolling and can quickly bow out. Likewise if they get kidnapped or killed and are the source of a revenge plot it is less of a big deal. If it is plot related then of course the DM hasn't told you they would only be temporary.

On the other hand if they are a genuine addition, kill it with fire.

[Once a Fool]

If the other players haven't played before, what do they have against a DMPC? How do they know they won't like it?

More realistically, the DMPC is probably a mistake--but it will only be one of many.

That's what first campaigns are about: testing the boundaries, riding railroads, careening off the tracks, finding way too much loot, murdering NPCs you weren't supposed to, murdering other PCs. Get it out of your systems. Have fun. Learn why that stuff isn't a sustainable way to play. Don't worry about it.

[JAL_1138]

Talk, out of game. It's practically always better to do so than for people to try and vent frustrations in-game.

[Hooligan]

I encourage you to join your companions in savaging the unsuspecting DMPC; Will make for a wildly entertaining follow up post

[Sigreid]

I recommend that you talk to the DM and maybe get a deal going where he doesn't run a DMPC, and you offer to DM say every other, or 3rd week or something like that. This way there's no DMPC, and he gets a little time where he actually gets to play.

[Contrast]

Sorry, as much as I'm dubious of DMPCs I think you guys are in the wrong here. You haven't even started playing yet and you seem to be plotting to subvert the game from the DMs (who you describe as a friend) control for no other reason than it might turn out badly. But you haven't even started playing yet. It might be fine - he might stand at the back being quiet except when you need him, he might be there because the DM doesn't feel confident enough to give direction to the party without having a convenient mouthpiece, he might find he doesn't need him after a few sessions or he might turn out to be a hilarious character who you all love.

If you have a problem with the DM having a DMPC, let him know out of character. If he still wants to give it a go, fine you're all inexperienced, the important thing is you're all having fun and learning the game together. If it turns out that the DMPC isn't working for whatever reason you can do something about him at that stage (preferably by talking to the DM).

Imagine for a moment if you do decide to take over the campaign and spend time creating a setting which you share some details of with the players and then you start your first session and the first thing the players do is wreck it because they disapprove of the setting and then you find out they'd been secretly talking behind your back planning how to go about doing this since they'd first heard about it. Wouldn't you just have preferred them to have the conversation up front?

[MBControl]

Instead of figuring out how to kill your DM's PC, lets talk about what characters you and the other players want to role up next. One sure way to get a TPK is anger the DM. I'm partially joking here, but I would not be surprised if the level of difficulty rises for you after that.

[busterswd]

I've played in one of the rare groups where a DMPC was an important part of the story and it still worked, so there is that. I've also run OotA, where you are essentially roleplaying 9 NPCs who can contribute to the party, and as long as you handle them properly, they work; they're an additional set of resources with some personality. I've heard enough horror stories where the DMPC did end up being a problem, but those are usually also situations where the DM was going to end up being a problem with or without a self-insertion. In other words, your group is worrying way early. See what the DM does with it first.

Also, you're breaking Rule 0 of a DnD group: resolve problems like adults and out of the game. Talk with people if you have a disagreement, instead of letting things fester and breaking the campaign through inane character actions.

Also, in this case, DMing is a crap ton of preparation and work. You are actively destroying something the guy created without a legitimate reason to do so. Granted you all may be new, but that's not a group I'd ultimately want to run games for in the long term.

[atlas_hugged]

I agree with everyone stating the following.


The proper solution is to talk it out.
It sounds like your players haven't even played yet, so they have no basis for a preemptive killing. If you aren't going to talk it out with the DM beforehand, then at least give him a chance to play a DMPC right. He may run it okay. And if after a couple sessions, it's still cramping the group's style, try talking it out then.


Good games are built on good communication out of character.

[JohnRidd]

All some pretty good ideas. Our DM came online not too long ago, so I talked to him about it, and he's kinda wondering why the other guys didn't bring up the issue with him. So we decided that we'll split DM responsibilities, taking turns creating adventures, and at the end of one adventure/campaign/whatever, the other will bring in another adventure. We'll do short sessions for one another to bridge the gap and bring each other up to similar levels, and we'll leave our PC's at a city or home or whatever. That way we'll both be able to play, and learn to DM. Now I just need to learn some things.

[BW022]

So, a group of friends and I are planning to start D&D pretty soon. We're all pretty new, ...

Understand that the DM has absolute power -- they can end the game... permanently. There is no way this is going to work out for the good.

If you go to the game already planning on how to ruin the game... he'll return the favor and ruin it for you. It is trivial for him to kill off your characters, spend his time preparing to make the game as un-fun, or just not put any effort into it. Eventually, he'll realize he could be doing something else or playing with others. You'll also likely re-evaluation your friendship.

Imagine if we were friends. You invite me and some others over to play monopoly, you book time off, turn down other things for that evening, prepare snacks, setup the game, read the rules, etc. Great. However, I and the others get together and discuss how we don't like how you play monopoly, so we are going to throw the pieces around the room as soon as the game starts. I'd be an idiot if I couldn't see what the likely outcome was going to be... you would end the game and never invite us again... certainly for monopoly and most likely for any other game. You would probably think a lot differently about our 'friendship'. His reaction will be exactly the same in playing D&D.

If you aren't willing to do everything possible to make the game successful... don't play. Say "No thank you." By all means discuss the rules, setting, commitments, find another DM, go play with someone else, etc. However, if you aren't there to ruin the game... don't think you'll get a different reaction to my throwing monopoly pieces around as someone's game.

If you are all new... D&D is a social game. Finding a DM is hard -- especially for new players. Intentionally ruining a game for someone will have long term consequences for you.

[Tallis]

All some pretty good ideas. Our DM came online not too long ago, so I talked to him about it, and he's kinda wondering why the other guys didn't bring up the issue with him. So we decided that we'll split DM responsibilities, taking turns creating adventures, and at the end of one adventure/campaign/whatever, the other will bring in another adventure. We'll do short sessions for one another to bridge the gap and bring each other up to similar levels, and we'll leave our PC's at a city or home or whatever. That way we'll both be able to play, and learn to DM. Now I just need to learn some things.

That'd awesome! Sounds like the 2 of you have the start of a great group. Now you may need to talk to the other players about not being jerks.

[Sigreid]

All some pretty good ideas. Our DM came online not too long ago, so I talked to him about it, and he's kinda wondering why the other guys didn't bring up the issue with him. So we decided that we'll split DM responsibilities, taking turns creating adventures, and at the end of one adventure/campaign/whatever, the other will bring in another adventure. We'll do short sessions for one another to bridge the gap and bring each other up to similar levels, and we'll leave our PC's at a city or home or whatever. That way we'll both be able to play, and learn to DM. Now I just need to learn some things.

Glad to hear it is working out. Another option to the mini adventures to keep up is to simply level the current DM's character with the others assuming that he's done something to keep up. The mini adventures can be good practice for both of you, and give you guys a chance to talk about making calls without disrupting the game for everyone else but if you don't have time simply deciding as a group that it's ok to give the same xp to the sitting out character is a perfectly find answer.

[Malifice]

Our DM has created himself a DMPC, which he plans to mostly use as an NPC who travels with the party but will be involved in battle to a degree. When we have our first session, two of our players are trying to recruit the other three of us to help murder the DMPC as soon as introductions are made, as the general consensus in the group of players is that the DM shouldn't have a PC. Which, in general I agree that a DMPC usually is a bad idea, but I'm not so keen on doing the whole murdering thing(especially as my PC is a Paladin).

What a terrible and toxic group you have there.

I'm speechless.

[Socratov]

well, I'll spare you my echo of talking it out and instead would like to invite you to ponder the following: what would be the consequences of that action?

You see, the DM has a DMPC for a reason. wether it be not willing to give up being a player or to have a PC with the party to guide them back on track when they fall off the quest track too far. You as a group should remember that the DM invests a lot of time in preparing a session of DnD, in particular quests and storyline. While it might be a tool for railroading if used to liberally, it could make for a great tool to let everyone have fun, including the DM seeing his labour bear fruit. To screw that effort over by using an in-game action to nullify some hard work the DM put into the game might have an averse effect on the. This could result in a myriad of ways, of which the extremes might be some form of a cold war between the players and the DM, each going to new heights to overdo the other's actions, or even prompt the DM into stopping to DM for you and leaving you guys without a DM.

So, before you go talk to the DM, please talk to your buddies playing with you: how would they feel if what they are planning to do was done to them. Pleaste tell them that preparing a game takes at least 4 hours for a session, sometimes going up to 2 days depeneding on the party composition, party level and the plans the DM has for the party.

[fbelanger]

You don't have start to play, and already oppose to the DM.
DM do mistake. All the time.

A Dmpc is not usual, but all Npc are Dmpc. It can work. let your DM try it at least.

DnD is a collaborative game, you gonna have fun learning that.

[Seruvius]

Why would you think that murdering the DMPC at the start of an adventure your Dm has put time and effort into making for a group of new players is a good idea? Best case he might laugh it off, more likely it straight away sets up an old school dm vs pc mentality, worst case the DM decides you are not worth their effort and just leaves. Poof, campaign over, hope you enjoyed your introduction to D&D.

Talk about with the GM, find out why they have a dmpc in the party. It may just be there because they want to be a pc as well (which is a bad reason) but there may be a very good reason. Is it a cleric to help keep you all alive because you are all dpr people? Or a wizard to add some utility spells? A tank to shield for the rest of the party's squishiness? There are many resonable reasons a DM might decide to throw in a DMPC in a group of inexperienced players. Maybe the DMPC was meant to die early to give you all focus against some big bad, and maybe it is just a gandalf style crutch to help your party of 13 dwarven fighters and 1 halfling rogue to get past anything that requires magic.

In the end, be adults. You are in a game together to have fun together. The GM puts a ton of time and effort into making the adventure. I can't speak for everyone, but in my campaigns i would say there is a rough 1:1 ratio of hours in game to hours of work i put in prior and during the campaign. Making maps, creating beleivable characters and locations, balancing plunder/loot, having a rough idea of what the characteristics of most npc's are so if the pc's do something unexpected i can have them react in a consistent manner, adjusting mid-adventure to whatever the PC's have decided to do that i didn't expect etc. I personally never use DMPC's (closest i get to it is if the party convince some npc to tag along for a while) but if i did have one and the party went behind my back to murder it right from the start, I would take that rather personally and I'm doubtful I would want to throw dozens of hours of my time away to teach these people the wonderful game that is D&D.

[Shining Wrath]

Either you trust your DM or you don't.
If you don't, find someone else to DM.
If you do, let them DM, and if they want a DMPC, let them have it. There may be an in-game reason why this character is necessary; don't make a new DM's job harder by deliberately killing someone who may be important to the plot. If my party had begun session 1 by murdering the quest-giving patron it would have really caused me to do lots of work.

[odigity]

No point repeating points that have been covered, so here's a new one.

An argument for the validity and usefulness of DMPCs when run by a competent / mature DM:

http://theangrygm.com/here-comes-tagalong/


Understand that the DM has absolute power -- they can end the game... permanently.

That may be true if the party is made up of prisoners and the DM is their warden, but in most cases, D&D is a consensual activity. Free association means players can walk away from the table. Sure, the DM has a little more bargaining power, as DMs are scarcer than Players (because it takes both more skill and more time to do), but it's still a perpetual negotiation process.

Even the DM-as-final-arbiter role is technically negotiable. It's the most common model because it's simple and works well, but I could see a party of anarcho-communists / anarcho-syndicalists deciding to adjudicate in-game actions via something silly like a voting system or even a concensus model.

The only sentient in the universe with absolute power is the basement-dwelling geek who wrote the code for the simulation we're all trapped in.

[Citan]

Talk to the DM and suggest no DMPC.

This looks like the sort of thing that will end up pissing off someone and dissolving the group immediately.

A DMPC is only as bad as it is intrusive. All NPCs are DMPCs, some are aligned with the PCs even.
Sage Advice of the day! \o/

@OP: frankly, I'd say speak about it with the DMPC, with the intent of convincing him to either go along the way or just drop the DMPC.
And only if you can't convince other players to drop (or at least stall) the idea, waiting to see how it actually goes...

If nothing is said and murdering happens, depending on the DMs, it could end in a very large variety of reactions, with a good part of them being destructive for the group.
Which seems probable to me since, from what I get, the DM is fairly new at these kind of things.

And players (= human) using an ingame way (characters murdering) to express an outside rejection (no DMPC) seems very bad to me in most cases (like, unless it's a fairly solid group with meanie jokes being thrown out every way as a basis, because everyone trusts everyone. Which doens't seem the case here).
Especially if nobody (out of game) ever voiced any discontent when the DM, preparing the game, told you he was gonna make a DMPC.
DM would be legitimely felt backstabbed just because players didn't have the balls to voice themselves in the first place.


If he just wanted to play also, suggest maybe to altern DMing if you feel ready for it, or just say you will make another campaign which you will DM in which he can be a regular player.
If he wanted a DMPC for a reason pertaining the campaign, help him find another way to help the party (or, if you also agree this is the right way, tell other players to drop their idea without even having to tell why).

Total win if you make him agree to keep the DMPC but play along with the murder, maybe adding a fun twist somewhere along the way (like, party was actually right to kill him because you would discover later he just joined to try and rob/kill/betray you all, although you had no real idea at the time).
Because it would be fun for everyone, him included. :)

[lunaticfringe]

All NPCs are DMPCs, some are aligned with the PCs even.

This This This. I DM I control everything. I have a ton of characters. The only thing I don't control is the party's thought processes. They can plan and attempt whatever their beautiful if twisted minds can dream up (within the rules of course). As a DM I feel it would be an overstep on my part to try and insinuate myself in this process. It's rude, I don't belong there. also I have insider information that fact alone will reduce my players confidence in their own abilities. They will look at me/DMPC as some sort of good plan forecasting device. What do I do? Do I hint at them the plan will fail or do I agree with it and allow them to be Ambushed at some sad attempt to not metagame. I get DMs want to play, to be one of the heroes, to try out sweet builds. You can do all of that as a DM and more, you just have to have the right attitude. (Loving playing Villains helps a lot too, good Evil games as a PC are rare.)

Sorry for the tangent, I am glad things seem to be working out.

[ZX6Rob]

Boy, I sure love it as a DM when I spend hours at a stretch crafting a story and an adventure for my friends to all get together and play some heroic fantasy and they immediately decide to upend that plan into the dumpster by derailing the entire day to murder in cold blood a character that I had intended would be incredibly important to the telling of that story.

Man, do I sure enjoy it when I sit down to play a game where I'm expecting my players to want to take on the role of heroes in a grand and multifaceted adventure, finding treasure and defeating evil, and they decide they'd rather be psychopathic arsonists who brutally murder unarmed peasants "because they looked at me funny" or "because they were annoying".

It just tickles my little coal-black heart when I put a lot of effort, energy, and love into a setting and a story, and my players decide to disrespect me as a DM and a person by deliberately going against the established tone to play out juvenile, murderous fantasies that cause me to have to abandon all of that hard work almost immediately.

It just really makes me appreciate my players when they take me for granted, attempt to solve their minor frustrations with tenuously-justified in-game actions, don't bother to bring said frustrations up to me before I've put my time and energy into creating a scenario just for them, and then expect me to simply go along with them as they willfully and deliberately ruin everything I've planned and worked on for the past week and a half.

That just makes me really want to keep running a game for those people.

---

Reading through the thread, it sounds like the OP decided to curb their plan and simply discuss things with the DM, but this sort of thing happens often enough (and has happened to me directly enough) that I felt like saying something. I apologize for the biting and sarcastic tone, but I can't iterate enough how problems with your DM cannot be resolved with in-game actions. That way lies pettiness, anger, and disappointment, on both sides.

If you have a problem, talk to your DM.

If you think a ruling is unfair, talk to your DM.

If you have an issue with an element of the game, talk to your DM.

If you have a question about balance or game mechanics, talk to your DM.

If you disagree with a decision that was made in-game, talk to your DM.

If you aren't having fun for some reason, talk to your DM.

Nearly every single advice or question thread that comes up in this forum that isn't related to rules text interpretation can and should be solved with that one single phrase -- talk to your DM. This is a social game, and requires a degree of social grace in order to function smoothly.

You can't murder your way out of problems in real life, and attempting to do so always lands you in more trouble than you were trying to avoid in the first place. The same is true of D&D.

[R.Shackleford]

So, a group of friends and I are planning to start D&D pretty soon. We're all pretty new, I think I'm the only one who has played before and that's only a few sessions. Anyway, our DM has created himself a DMPC, which he plans to mostly use as an NPC who travels with the party but will be involved in battle to a degree. When we have our first session, two of our players are trying to recruit the other three of us to help murder the DMPC as soon as introductions are made, as the general consensus in the group of players is that the DM shouldn't have a PC. Which, in general I agree that a DMPC usually is a bad idea, but I'm not so keen on doing the whole murdering thing(especially as my PC is a Paladin). Like I said, we're all pretty much brand new to RPG's, and I think the DM is partially wanting to play a character for the first time. I'm halfway tempted to take over the DM'ing, if this is the way things are going to go, I'd just need to do some work to find a story or campaign or whatever, because I like the idea of doing the whole DM thing, I just don't have all the rules and stuff like our current DM-to-be does. To be honest, I'm kind of torn between talking to our DM privately and just watching the murdering go down(just because it would be kinda funny, if you were to know our particular group of players). But I feel like the right thing to do would probably be to speak to the DM in private about it, I guess. Not exactly sure how to bring the matter up to the DM, and what exactly to say. Should I just talk to him about not creating a DMPC in general and avoid the murder-y bits? Or should I tell him about the plot on the DMPC's life and try to convince him not to go that route by telling him all of that?

First off... If you do it in a lawful way then it isn't murder. But Paladins are typically one of the better murder bots out there.

Secondly...

Give the DM a chance. Your fellow players are being antagonists toward the DM without the DM really doing anything wrong.

I run DM NPCs from time to time to be a helper type character that never really gains the spot light. This is typically with new groups or people who don't have much experience so that I can help them through roleplay instead of grinding the game to a hault.

My suggestion is to let the DM know that he is playing with a few jerked players and to watch your character's back. Even if they don't know you talked with the DM, they sound like the kind of players who would get rid of a paladin.

[Therumancer]

I don't know the party content, but a lot of the time a DM controlled party member is there to shore up a weakness in the group. The most common example of this is the GM running a healer when everyone else wants to play fighters, mages, and rogues. It gives the GM some input ICly in the game to help keep things on track while also helping the party to survive by filling out a needed role.

Plotting to murder your healer out of spite is usually counter productive.

I can't say for sure this is what's going on, simply that it's the most common situation. I've also seen cases where GMs have played fighters in a squishy party lacking muscle, or a rogue who can do locks and traps if nobody ever thought of filling out that role.

GM "PCs" become a problem when it turns into a personal power trip where he pretty much turns his character into the hero and the PCs into what amount to his loyal sidekicks (when such a character should be a partner at the most, and effectively a sidekick to the PCs in many cases). If your new at doing this with the GM, you haven't even given him a chance though... and honestly talking about it is a better solution than trying to do something in game if there is an issue because the GM is likely to get upset if you suddenly embark on a murder plot. Not to mention the alignment questions if ICly this character your killing has literally done nothing to you. Unless your all RPing bandits or seriel killers, even most evil types usually have some reason behind what they do.

That's just my thoughts on the subject. Over the years I've included a number of NPC companions with groups and even have a few folios for different games specifically for yanking out NPCs on a moments notice (in addition to characters of my own creation there are things like Rogues Gallery, or the ancient "Shady Dragon Inn" for old school Basic D&D). for that purpose (I prefer NPC companion to the term GM PC). I've also gamed with a number of groups where the GM has had a companion character or even two present. The thing is that the extra record keeping and such in running an NPC companion shows some commitment to the game, because it's the GM often prioritizing letting people play what they want. It solves the problem of a group not functioning because a needed "crucial" role is missing, or the last person to get a character done basically being goaded into playing whatever the party needs. Some players (like me a lot of the time) will ask, especially when joining a group, what the party needs the most, but most players show up with a clear idea of what they want to play, and oftentimes it's not "healer dude" or "basic muscle guy".

5E seems to be a little more versatile in some areas than earlier versions of (A)D&D and other classic RPGs, in that there are ways to fill the basic party functions without being forced down a specific path. For example you don't always need to have a heal oriented Cleric somewhere in the group (though it still helps greatly, especially from a team play perspective) as a few different types of characters can fill that role. That said, sometimes an NPC companion is going to be just what the doctor ordered to keep a game running smoothly once all the players have made their characters.

Oh, and again, talk it out if it's a problem. Screwing with the GM is a bad idea, you piss him off by murdering his NPC, especially if it's a favored "ego trip" character, you aren't running the risk of him gaining IC vengeance through monsters and such. You run the risk of pissing him off in RL and not wanting to GM for you. That's why you need to talk it out. When a GM winds up becoming the hero of their own campaign it's not always intentional.


Apologies for length and repetitiveness, that's my two copper pieces on the subject.

[Malifice]

There is just so much wrong with this thread. I dont even know where to begin.

That your groups method of resolving an issue with your DM running a DMPC is to adversarially conspire out of game (in a game that hasnt even started yet) to murder that DMPC is wrong on every level. Literally wrong every single level.

Its:

1) Adversarial.
2) Bringing an out of game conflict, into the game and vice versa.
3) Shows a total lack of communication and trust between the players and the DM.
4) You're planning a murder of a person you havent met yet (no in game reason), with a LG paladin that you havent met yet (out of character in any event), in a game that hasnt even started yet (poor form)? I mean WTF?

I could go on. Its an example of everything you should never do as a player.

Is there anything wrong with: Speak to your DM and tell him that the players dont want to play with a DMPC. If he wont relent, accept it and move on, or dont play in his game.

If your DM wants to run his campaign in Eberron, you either accept or you decline. You dont accept, leave him to go off and build an adventure in Eberron, and then do everything in your power to derail the campaign anyway.

[Shining Wrath]

I've run DMPC clerics who had taken a vow of silence (except verbal components). Really just a mobile battery for hit points and buffs.

[Plaguescarred]

In character, the PCs don't know that the other party member is a DMPC, and shouldn't kill him for OOC reasons, that's just bad metagaming. Especially if said person is helping the party....Its unfair for the DMPC if its life matters, especially if it has story purposes and adventure info! :smallsmile:


Seriously though this is an Out of Character issue, which should be resolved OOC. Talk with the DM and tell him that you guys would prefer no DMPC.

[Plaguescarred]

I usually avoid DMPC as i prefer lower party headcount and don't want to control a character on trop of all the NPCs and monsters, but as an alternative for when i want a story and info holder in my campaign i will favor an intelligent weapon. Its great as it can talk, use powers, it doesn't take space in a battlefield, doesn't take treasure, and players usually don't want to kill it! :smallcool:

[R.Shackleford]

I've run DMPC clerics who had taken a vow of silence (except verbal components). Really just a mobile battery for hit points and buffs.

I usually make them likable and have them killed off in some way due to a player action.

It's awesome seeing players get paranoid and start trying to keep the DMPC/NPC alive at any cost.

Poor Barney the Warlord, you will be missed.