When the DMPC actually works!

[NerdHut]

Hey guys!

I just wanted to share my experience with running a DMPC, and see if you had experiences of your own you wanted to share.


In my E6 campaign, a story character I planned on being with the party part-time ended up joining them full time (partly due to missing players). For a while, I ran the character myself. This led to missing her initiative amidst the monsters, stretching my attention too thin and the players even dismissing her frequently. But then we had a shift in how things played.
The two players that had missed a few session promised to attend the next game, so I planned a dungeon of appropriate difficulty. Then they cancelled. We ended up not playing that week, but for the next week I had two versions of the dungeon prepared, one high-power, the other low power. We had three melee mostly mundane characters, plus the melee mundane DMPC as our reliable party. If the other players showed up, we'd have a healer (cleric), and extra muscle. The higher-power version of the dungeon would be no problem if they showed up, but if they didn't show up, the party would have to slog through the lower-power dungeon.
Then I had an idea. I built an additional NPC that would basically be an auto-pilot healer (healer base class), and if they took her with them, they could do the higher-power dungeon. They liked that idea. A lot. But I changed how the NPCs were played. At this point, the original DMPC was familiar enough to the players, they understood her motivations and behavior, so I turned over control of both NPCs to the players as a group. They got to decide what tactical decisions they made, and I filled in the blanks when RP was necessary.
Suddenly, the players were much much more attached to the character. They approached the dungeon feeling apathetic about her, and left it wanting to help her with renewed enthusiasm.


That's when I realized what doesn't work about DMPCs. It's not a DM-made character that's the problem. It's taking control away from the players without realizing you're doing it that's the problem. When I played the character, she told the party what to do to help her. When the players had input on what she did, she was leading the players toward mutual benefits.


TL;DR:
I recently figured out that if you need a story NPC to go with the party, you need to establish their personality quickly and then hand over the proverbial reins to the players so they still feel like they're making their own choices.

[CaPtMalHammer]

i agree fully, I have never been a fan of a DMPC. A DM running an NPC for story purposes then having them disappear is one thing but a DM running a full PC seems to be counter productive. Out of combat they are just walking zombies with no real opinions etc. because as the DM You know all the answers so its impossible to be neutral on anything. In combat the DM should be focused on the enemy, traps etc and when their turn comes around it slows things way down. And if they crit or do something awesome its kind of like oh yeah great the DM just solved his own combat. It is almost like the game is on autopilot and that the Players at the table are not even needed really.

[Esprit15]

Best DMPC I saw played the healbot because nobody else wanted to. Was a slave that we met while captured by drow, wound up sticking by us when we helped him escape.

[Thurbane]

Best DMPC I saw played the healbot because nobody else wanted to. Was a slave that we met while captured by drow, wound up sticking by us when we helped him escape.

Most of the NPCs/borderline DMPCs I insert into a group are healbots/buffers when no-one else wants to be.

[Yahzi]

It's not a DM-made character that's the problem.
Well, that's good, since literally every creature in the world outside of the players is a DM-made character. :smallbiggrin:

Creating NPCs with personalities, agendas, and goals is not creating a DMPC. It's just creating a good NPC.

[NerdHut]

Creating NPCs with personalities, agendas, and goals is not creating a DMPC. It's just creating a good NPC.

To hear some playgrounders tell it, you'd think that any character that says more than a few sentences is a DMPC, railroad tycoon, who turns the campaign into one long cutscene.

That's probably why I struggled for a while with the NPC. She needed to be present at times, but I didn't want to take away the players' agency. Even when I'm not actually giving the players a choice in the progression of the story, I want to to still feel like they have a choice.


I also made the (surprisingly good) choice to make her a strong warrior without overshadowing any of the players. Her stats were good, but below the ranger's, cleric's, and rogue's strong suits. I remember playing in a friend's campaign a while back that was heavy on homebrew. Most of the players were casters and/or skill monkeys. I was practically SheHulk, as a stonechild with extra elemental powers. There was an NPC Minotaur who was exceptional in combat. Everyone hated him but me, it seems, because he was ridiculously strong and could dominate in melee combat. I could hold my own just as well as him, so he was like a peer. Everyone else saw a meatshield spending too much time driving the story.

[Vaz]

Quick Question; if you are putting in a character to a game where it reduces the difficulty, why are you bothering with creating that character and not just reducing the difficulty? Giving everyone free buffs and heals so that they can do higher difficulty stuff seems a bit, meh. Either just give them the magic items so that they can do it themselves, or just drop the difficulty.

Simples.

[Stealth Marmot]

I think it's a fairly universal truth that not many people want to play the healbot. This is probably why they made Clerics beast mode in some editions.

My recent pathfinder game I was DMing had me playing a cleric to fill the healbot role for my first level party. I intended to have him be as non-descript as possible and even gave him a name that screamed "Don't take this character seriously". I named him Fred Fredburger.

Funnily enough, he ended up getting some encouragement when he hit some things so he actually grew a bit of personality, but I still had him leave when the other party member showed up without so much as an announcement.

[stanprollyright]

Quick Question; if you are putting in a character to a game where it reduces the difficulty, why are you bothering with creating that character and not just reducing the difficulty? Giving everyone free buffs and heals so that they can do higher difficulty stuff seems a bit, meh. Either just give them the magic items so that they can do it themselves, or just drop the difficulty.

Simples.

Because you're playing a prewritten module that isn't easily modified.

Because encounters would be uneven, where one failed save or DM crit can turn the tables too quickly.

Because you wanna fight epic stuff like dragons and vampires earlier for thematic reasons instead of slogging through more goblins.

Because you want to be able to build stakes by killing a member of the party without killing a PC.

Because you want to gain the PCs' trust before the NPC betrays them.

Because your PCs don't mind being railroaded, or even prefer it.

[Elkad]

If I'm using a DM PC (or even just a temporary henchman), I always make 2 versions of the character sheet. One for me, and one for the players to look at.

Every time there is a fight, a random-ish player gets handed the player version of the sheet.

It's so much better when you hit that pack of ghouls, and one of your players says "OK, Zert will charge them." and you say "Nope. Giant frogs and bandits were fine, but not ghouls. He takes a cheap shot at your wizard's back, and then runs like hell. Now the ghouls charge you." "But his sheet says CG!" "Yeah, that version does... In the distance you hear a door slam and a bar drop."

[Stealth Marmot]

"I don't have to outrun the ghouls, I just have to outrun YOU.

[Vaz]

Because you're playing a prewritten module that isn't easily modified.

It is very easy to modify on the fly, although that maybe experience talking. As a new DM there were many Under or Over CR encounters depending on party. Running campaigns for all rogues, or Full Casters, or guys playing straight out of the starter set into the railroads that I wasn't even enforcing, but were obvious paths for the players to take, and I've changed stuff up immediately. DC25 climb? No worries, says Cleric and pops Guidance of the Avatar. Changes little.


Because encounters would be uneven, where one failed save or DM crit can turn the tables too quickly.
Have a word with your players before the game. Get ready to note certain break points in the parties abilities. Fudge rolls. Modify stats on the fly. Play monsters more or less optimally. That Gnoll Monk who had just tripped and stunned you? By all rights, he's CDGing you, but as a DM, he grapples you and holds you aloft with one hand in an attempt to intimidate the rest of the party.


Because you wanna fight epic stuff like dragons and vampires earlier for thematic reasons instead of slogging through more goblins.
So fight less powerful Dragons. There are ~25 different breeds, each with 12 age categories. A dozen templates to apply. For Vampires, they rely on their base class features. Rather than a 500 year old Vampire Lord, they are facing one of his most recent progeny. Still a vampire, but only 30 years old with 10 years as a Vampire, he doesn't have the experience/Class levels, maybe even still using nonesense NPC classes like Aristocrat, rather than retraining them as an undead Samurai.


Because you want to be able to build stakes by killing a member of the party without killing a PC.

You can do that without making an NPC. Give the party something to care about. Look at Matt Mercer, here. He gives the party a city of which they are a valued members of tje community, and then brings it crashing down. People they care about in game losing their lives, bit are otherwise filler material/Quest givers. Those people he controls to aid the party, be it Percy's sister, or.absent party members never impact the parties ability to do anything. The party can still do the same encounter without said individual helping them. They don't require anything from Percy's sister, she doesn't provide healing which they later rely on tobsurvive a fight, etc.

I might be being unfair using matt mercer as the example here, as he is an incredible DM (and VA, which adds to things), but we can always learn bits from him.


Because you want to gain the PCs' trust before the NPC betrays them.
Right out of matt mercer, actually. That isn't a DMPC, that is an NPC/BBEG/Generic Villain #17.


Because your PCs don't mind being railroaded, or even prefer it.
None of which requires a DMPC. Have the party at a Tavern, when someone comes up to them, and ask if they are for hire. If they reply in the affirmative (if not, give them an OoC slap, and say this is your plot hook, take it, if they enjoy the railroad for what it is, they will take that hook).

A DMPC is someone a DM can play on both sides of the table. Control of an NPC character is different. A DMPC is one who is part of the party for any and all reasons not someone tagging along at times for story occasions or a hireling/follower brought along by relevant party members.


If I'm using a DM PC (or even just a temporary henchman), I always make 2 versions of the character sheet. One for me, and one for the players to look at.

Every time there is a fight, a random-ish player gets handed the player version of the sheet.

It's so much better when you hit that pack of ghouls, and one of your players says "OK, Zert will charge them." and you say "Nope. Giant frogs and bandits were fine, but not ghouls. He takes a cheap shot at your wizard's back, and then runs like hell. Now the ghouls charge you." "But his sheet says CG!" "Yeah, that version does... In the distance you hear a door slam and a bar drop."
Please, let me know if we ever game in real life, this is a terrible thing to do to players.

'Better'

[Elkad]

If I'm using a DM PC (or even just a temporary henchman), I always make 2 versions of the character sheet. One for me, and one for the players to look at.

Every time there is a fight, a random-ish player gets handed the player version of the sheet.

It's so much better when you hit that pack of ghouls, and one of your players says "OK, Zert will charge them." and you say "Nope. Giant frogs and bandits were fine, but not ghouls. He takes a cheap shot at your wizard's back, and then runs like hell. Now the ghouls charge you." "But his sheet says CG!" "Yeah, that version does... In the distance you hear a door slam and a bar drop."


Please, let me know if we ever game in real life, this is a terrible thing to do to players.

'Better'


What is? Letting the players run the NPCs in combat? Or having the CE spy for the Temple of Elemental Evil they recruited (and didn't vet in any way) for extra muscle turn on them mid-fight?

[killem2]

I'm glad you had a great experience but this is not an example of a DM PC at least to the degree that this forum looks at them as and most others too I suppose but when you have dmpc they are supposed to be a fully-fledged integrated character you are literally multitasking a character of your own in your own campaign. If I go out tomorrow and start a Way of the Wicked campaign or a kingmaker campaign as the dungeon master and I decide to roll up a character and I play with the characters that's what a dungeon master player character is.

This is probably the single most heated topic for me followed by the tier list. Reasons why you should not play your own player character in your own campaign are not the typical crap about how you keep your character all the good stuff and you'll screw up your plans that is not a byproduct of me making a character for my own campaign that is a byproduct of your dungeon master being a tool and immature piece of crap.

I need to find my post I made one of the three main parts of why you should or should not run your own player card but if I can remember what I said it mostly had to do with managing time at its core because running your own PC in your own campaign in addition to the fact that you have to run the entire world on top of non-player characters is quite daunting and not something I would suggest for even the most experienced dungeon Masters which I am far from but I am getting better in my 6 years experience.

There is a distinct Line in the Sand between a dungeon Master's player character in a non-player character a dungeon master player character has meaning something to the person playing it just like you're carrying something to you are playing a game.

I just think the concept of a dungeon master player character gets way too much hate because it's not an easy thing to do and a lot of people just Auto equate the bad that comes from a poor dungeon master and player combo

[Vaz]

What is? Letting the players run the NPCs in combat? Or having the CE spy for the Temple of Elemental Evil they recruited (and didn't vet in any way) for extra muscle turn on them mid-fight?
That is the PC's recruiting an NPC, not a DMPC. I retract what I said about that, but not that it is a terrible idea. See the bit in my post you quoted.

I mean don't get me wrong, Shepherd betraying you and shooting ghost while burning you alive in M2TW cut me deep, because he was the cool as ice, hard ass general you'd play Ride of the Valkyries to as you went into battle, not go all False Flag.

But that is where you are playing a character designed to die. Even though you don't know it, and there is a planned continuation know, those Red Shirts have served their purpose, especially after the events of MW where you had a similar experience, bug now knowing who was to blame. So, you pick uo with your main character once again and go through to the end, and kill the Traitor as the culmination of the quest.

In D&D you can't do that. Either the DM is controlling NPC's to let the party tell their story, or he is against the party. Only one of these is okay, unless it is specifically noted that the DM is vsing the party.

The problem is also that Death is a resource for the players, like any vodeo game, at a certain level. Raise Dead spells/scrolls are there for a reason. Or not, if you want death to mean something. But nobody should be forced to lose their fun, and lose their invested characters they created because of a DMPC suddenly flipping out because they can't read its mind to learn that it is fine killing anything but that once it fights undead it will literally backstab before running away.

It is a ****ing terrible idea, especially when you are beimg 'generous' and telling the party what you are doing, and then lying to the players (not the characters while Roleplaying, but the players), that is what makes you a terrible DM, and arguably, person if you think that is okay).

Hell, I ran a campaign with people new to the game. I had them attack a patrol of men coming into the village at first. Killed them all, good money fun loot, magic sword for fighter from officer. 3 sessions later, they go to king and search for missing Guardsmen. Following instructions they learn the village they were defending was actually a bandit village which had stolen food and supplies from caravans going to refugees before extorting it out.

That is the correct way to run betrayal. Not have the party TPK'd or inconvenienced in the middle of a combat because of some arbitrary 'aha!' the DM has connived.

In as much as the party shouldn't have a "random" encounter, only to have a "random" roll made to see if a monster appears die to the noise they are making. These are DM decisions to roll, and by putting it on a 50/50 it may feel as if they are putting it on the dice roll, which is nonsense.

DM's have control of every aspect of the game outside of player character actions. Taking that away with a DMPC, especially when their entire role is to hurt the party is awful game design.

[killem2]

Here we go, this is what I think of when I think of appropriate times to use a DMPC:


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

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

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

[NerdHut]

It is very easy to modify on the fly, although that maybe experience talking. As a new DM there were many Under or Over CR encounters depending on party.

Preparing two versions of the dungeon was my form of modification. I can improvise and work on the fly, but if I know ahead of time that there are two ways things can go, I'll prepare for both. I know I can just take out a couple monsters, or reduce a DC, but I don't want to have to calculate what's an appropriate amount of modification for every single encounter without preparation. I can keep the layout, keep the style of encounter the same, but just have the scale adjusted for two Effective Party Levels ahead of time.

[Draconi Redfir]

when i DM'ed a game, the local sorccerer had a giant gekko mount that for some reason he decided he wanted to awaken. The party didn't have any melee / tanky classes and were relying on their shaman to do that for them. so i allowed the gekko to be awakened, threw in a free anthropamorphic spell, and it became a lage-sized mute pc that i had control of.

took awhile for him to get used to walking on two legs, but slowly he developed over time, claiming an elephant tusk and eventually a statue's sword as his own, using his former crutch as a sheild, etc. He was developed slowly so it wasn't at all overpowering at once, and i made sure he always did what the party agreed he should do.

turned out to be a benifit anyways, as later in the game two of the five players had to quit and we didn't have time to get more people before wrapping up the game under my DMing.

Party was eventually handed over to a more experianced DM who didn't want to deal with a large-sized DMPC, so i eventually had a building collapse on the party, and the Gekko held the roof up over them so they wouldn't die, collapsing under the weight once they were safely clear. Still ambiguous as to wether he's dead or not though, just in case someone wants to bring him back.

[BowStreetRunner]

I've run with 'Group PCs' in the past, and it worked out nicely. Every player would get one 'Personal PC' that they alone controlled. The party could recruit, train, equip and deploy any number of additional PCs that belonged to the group as a whole.

The Group PCs followed an additional set of rules - like always attacking the nearest threat in combat, generally only speaking when spoken to in social encounters, and so on - that were actually developed from henchman restrictions used in the game Mordheim by Games Workshop. Each Group PC would gain one exception to these rules per level. For instance the crossbow sniper was able to ignore the nearest threat rule and target the greatest threat instead. Group PCs had their own personalities that were effectively hard-wired - they could not ignore something like a racial hatred of orcs or deep-set fear of giant spiders - these had to be role-played as much as possible. Meanwhile Personal PCs were much more flexible in that the individual player had the final say in how the character was played.

My experience was that the players ended up building Personal PCs that reflected what they thought was the most fun to play and relegated roles that were less desirable to the Group PCs. So characters like the party crafter, healbot, and even meatshields ended up being Group PCs. The players then had much more freedom to build whatever sort of Personal PC they wanted.

On another note, the most effective use of DMPCs I ever employed was in a game in which the party started out with a bunch of Mary Sue DMPCs that were just awesome at showing the PCs up at absolutely everything. They dominated the first 3/4ths of game day 1. Then the DMPCs were wiped out entirely and the PCs were left to flee. That set the tone for the campaign nicely. It was the most effective way I could think of to drive home the idea that the PCs weren't invincible and would need to avoid the direct attack method these particular players usually employed in these games.

[Vaz]

Preparing two versions of the dungeon was my form of modification. I can improvise and work on the fly, but if I know ahead of time that there are two ways things can go, I'll prepare for both. I know I can just take out a couple monsters, or reduce a DC, but I don't want to have to calculate what's an appropriate amount of modification for every single encounter without preparation. I can keep the layout, keep the style of encounter the same, but just have the scale adjusted for two Effective Party Levels ahead of time.

You get used to it. It's like walking. I'm not questioning your DM abilities either, just questioning why a DMPC was needed.

When you first started, how did you know what was appropriate for its CR? Take the tarrasque for example; CR20 something, taken out by a snotty 7th level conjurer. Easily fixed of course, but until one finds their feet, one can only guess and learn from experience.

Running a party with an average AC of 14, I meeded monsters with +4 to hit. If that party has an average AC of 18, they need a +8, unless I accept that the party is going to wafflestomp these guys (assuming low level melee brutes).

Alternatively, running AC14 Vs +8 to hit enemies results in a different encounter. You get used to eyeballing, and fudging rolls if necessary.

Remember, fun is the name of the game. The number of times monsters have done innopportune stuff, or KO'd a nearly dead monster from someones last action, or changed a crit to a normal hit i've lost track. It doesn't stop me having fun, even the bloodthirsty bit that has me know the party would be TPK'd had I not had that guy fail to read the evil overlords handbook, or I nudged a roll.

Storytelling is paramount (after fun). If your characters are dead, you don't get to let the players live their stories. The skill of a DM is in keeping the players feeling like these self invested characters are in danger, but having them pull through in the end. An arbitrary macguffin or DMPC can cheapen that. They don't need to know you rolled a triple 20 on that vorpal sword roll unless you know.they can fix it, in which case death is a resource and all of this discussion is invalid anyway, and they shouldn't have a DMPC in that instance.

That said, running tomb or horrors, everyone should have about 5-6 backuo characters ready.

[Elkad]

But nobody should be forced to lose their fun, and lose their invested characters they created because of a DMPC suddenly flipping out because they can't read its mind to learn that it is fine killing anything but that once it fights undead it will literally backstab before running away.

It is a ****ing terrible idea, especially when you are beimg 'generous' and telling the party what you are doing, and then lying to the players (not the characters while Roleplaying, but the players), that is what makes you a terrible DM, and arguably, person if you think that is okay).

A big point of that module is that the "sleepy little village" the party is working out of is anything but that. It actually has quite a few evil dudes, all spying/plotting for the Temple of Elemental Evil.
Without that, ToEE is just a hole in the ground with 300 rooms of randomly rolled monsters.

Hire the wrong guy, he's going to at least report on you, and maybe take a shot at you if the opportunity looks good. Sell stuff identifiable as belonging to key NPCs to the wrong merchant in town, and you get assassins sent after you. Sit in the common room at the inn and let your plans for tomorrow be overheard, and you'll find an ambush waiting for you
There are also a few characters who are agents of good who might join you. If your party is murderhoboing around, again they might find trouble - from the good guys this time.

I've run it at least a half-dozen times. Every single party seems to look through the available hirelings in town and pick Zert. Who turns on them every time. Except usually he fails at it and dies. This one just happened to line up where the proper play for him was to turn and then run away. He'd even snagged some loot earlier and made the party suspicious. So when faced with ghouls (which are definitely not on his side either), in possession of some decent loot, and valuable intel on the party he hadn't shared yet, he ran. The wizard was in his way (and no, he didn't die). For once Zert got to turn into a recurring villain instead of just a speed bump. And boy did the party hate him.

He'd been in the party for several sessions. Was he a DMPC? He was more than a generic henchman at least. Letting them (usually) play him in combat was an easy way to for me to separate his actions from what I knew was around the next corner.

Turning on the party is something any of my players are free to do at any time as well (and it's happened - sometimes accidentally, but sometimes not). Their is no PvP flag in my games.
When the party tank gets dominated, it may be easiest to just kill him.
When the rogue is sneaking around invisible in a pack of ogres, I don't let him put his token on the board if the other players can't detect him. Which means sometimes he's in the fireball radius, blows his save, gets knocked unconscious, and bleeds out 4 rounds after the fight was won because nobody found the patch of bent grass indicating his invisible form in time.
Heck, I've had 2 paladins (of different gods, but both LG, and both with perfectly functional RP reasons for their decision) come to blows over whether or not baby goblins were evil and should be executed.
PCs steal treasure from one another.
I've had multiple "you don't have to outrun the bad guy, just the slowest guy in the party" moments. Including ones where someone was "helped" to be slower.
I had a player offer to be Horatio (or Gandalf) at the Bridge, and as soon as the party was out of sight he made a deal with the badguys. Only to show up in town after a "miraculously escape" and then turn on the party several sessions later.

[NerdHut]

You get used to it. It's like walking. I'm not questioning your DM abilities either, just questioning why a DMPC was needed.

I get that. I've been DMing for less than a year now, so anytime I know I can prepare, I do. Improv isn't scary, but it's more difficult that prepared materials when setting up battle.

The one I have been calling a DMPC first met the party in session one, lost most of her family, and is now trying to save her son from the BBEG, who is currently using him as leverage. After a while, it didn't make much sense for her to split from the party again, as they were all working toward a related goal (Defeat the BBEG).

The healbot was optional. Since the story had already led them to know they were heading into a dungeon, I told them OoC how I planned out the options. Proceed with the three players + DMPC into the lower power version, or recruit a dedicated healer and proceed into the higher power version (which by RAW was technically just above CR). My players like fighting more enemies than fewer, so they chose the healbot and higher difficulty.

[RedMage125]

I try not to use DMPCs. I had a DM back in 3.0 days who frequently had NPCs who were basically DMPCs that constantly stole the show from the PCs. Like, the 7th level party was confronted with a LITERALLY Epic level villain, and then the Epic-level NPC came along and pulled their butts out of the fire.

Ugh.

I have, however, encountered times when the number of players was not sufficient. When I ran 4e, I sometimes could not get enough players. 4e assumes a party of 5 (and I would say best group makeup is Defender, Leader, Controller, Ranged Striker, Melee Striker), and I could only get 4 players at the time. So they were joined by a DMPC who filled the missing role (in this case, melee Striker). I made him a githzerai Avenger. He hadn't exactly taken a vow of silence, but he almost never spoke. He would help with the skills he was trained in that no one else was (Religion), or when they would ask him to do use another skill (Acrobatics, etc). Apart from that, he was only there to help in combat.

So he was not plot-critical, he only helped the numbers game to make combat fair, and I frequently turned control of him over to one of my more experienced players. That's about the only way I have ever done a DMPC.

For those DMs considering using one, my main piece of advice is "do NOT, under any circumstances, allow the DMPC to take the spotlight off your actual players".

[finaldooms]

Ive had to do a healbot a few times myself lol. .whenever i make a dmpc though my saves always end up bad!! Roll-wise i mean. .ive literally had 5 clerics die from phantasmal killer or something else that ends up will save or die in my games. ..i also tend to make rogues for the party since everyone forgets traps and secrets are a thing. ..like this new game we have a cleric( nearly died 3x already ) a fighter and then my dmpc rogue. .he likes to shout he is not a fighter and tries to run to the back in most fights. .my PCs love him. .especially when I managed to tear a kobold heart out with my punching dagger

[Tiri]

My regular group's PCs don't have a skillset that extends far beyond 'damage', so on the occasions I run them through modules I find including a DMPC of some sort to help with the non-combat parts easier than modifying the adventures.

For example, when going through an adventure called the Ministry of Winds I had a sorcerer and Tomb Mote at different points help the PCs find out bits of information they needed for the adventure, since they didn't have many investigative or utility abilities.

Of course, in true D&D PC fashion, once they had finished the adventure they turned on their Tomb Mote guide and destroyed him, on the grounds that he'd scanned as evil to Detect Evil.

[Deophaun]

so I turned over control of both NPCs to the players as a group
The point when the DMPC ceased to be a DMPC.

It's not a DM-made character that's the problem.
Right. Because if it were, then you couldn't have monsters, quest givers, or random townfolk, because those are all DM-made characters.

This isn't "When the DMPC works," this is "How to avoid using a DMPC." DMPCs never work, because there is always--always--a better option (as you discovered).

[Shackel]

The point when the DMPC ceased to be a DMPC.

Right. Because if it were, then you couldn't have monsters, quest givers, or random townfolk, because those are all DM-made characters.

This isn't "When the DMPC works," this is "How to avoid using a DMPC." DMPCs never work, because there is always--always--a better option (as you discovered).

The problem with this instinctual, nigh-on condescending claim that DMPCs never work ever can be summed up as such: they've worked in my group numerous times, almost instantly rendering the argument of "never" invalid.

[VincentTakeda]

In 30 years of gaming, we've had a dmpc I'd say... a little less than 90% of the time. And of those times its been a problem like... Zero percent.

[Deophaun]

The problem with this instinctual, nigh-on condescending claim that DMPCs never work ever can be summed up as such: they've worked in my group numerous times, almost instantly rendering the argument of "never" invalid.
The problem with this instinctual, nigh-on condescending claim that perpetual motion machines can never work ever can be summed up as such: they've worked in my house numerous times, almost instantly rendering the argument of "never" invalid.

On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.

Look at the OP: he claims he has an instance of a DMPC working, when the example is not a DMPC. A DMPC is a character that A) is controlled by the DM and B) competes for narrative focus with the PCs. When the game is not about what the players are doing, that's a problem. When you stop the game to monsterbate in front of everyone else, that's a problem. So I call BS on these mythical cases of good DMPCs. Even cases of real DMPCs being called "good" are better attributed to Stockholm syndrome.

The question of "Are DMPCs ok" is the same as the question "Is it permissible to punch your players in the face." Yes. If they want you to and provided you have a safe word. Doesn't make it a good general policy and shouldn't be seriously entertained outside a fetish site.

[Shackel]

The problem with this instinctual, nigh-on condescending claim that perpetual motion machines can never work ever can be summed up as such: they've worked in my house numerous times, almost instantly rendering the argument of "never" invalid.

On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.

The 'condescending' part really comes into play, here: this positively silly thought that if you're wrong, it must be the other person doing something incorrectly that leads to even the slimmest possibility that your claim just might be a bit on the hyperbolic side.

Not to mention the fact that your example makes no sense whatsoever when you use of objective physics rather than something completely opinion-based. Subjective in every way shape and form.


Look at the OP: he claims he has an instance of a DMPC working, when the example is not a DMPC. A DMPC is a character that A) is controlled by the DM and B) competes for narrative focus with the PCs. When the game is not about what the players are doing, that's a problem. When you stop the game to monsterbate in front of everyone else, that's a problem.

If there are 4 PCs and one DMPC, that is 20% of the narrative focus. 5% from each person(and that's assuming they really do have equal weight) isn't that much unless you have some coincidental, irrational hatred for an entire concept based on 1-2 bad incidents, but, what are the chances of that.

And really, now, it's not like if you 'monsterbate' when you're a PC it's exactly acceptable, either. If you hog all the screentime as a PC and your group isn't okay with that, it's a problem whether you're a DMPC or a PC. Nothing changes. You're still a bad player.


So I call BS on these mythical cases of good DMPCs. Even cases of real DMPCs being called "good" are better attributed to Stockholm syndrome.

Remember that "condescending" thing? I'm certain there's more than a few fallacies based on the baffling claim that if someone doesn't agree with you, they just have Stockholm Syndrome. They don't even believe they're right, they're just delusional! Give me a break. If you actually believe there is objective truth behind your statements, that there is some mythical inability for every single person who plays D&D(or any TTRPG) to play a PC the second their butt hits the DM chair, and that, more specifically, anyone who disagrees with that is literally delusional, perhaps you should look into either the people you play with or your own mindset. Both are gravely unhealthy.


The question of "Are DMPCs ok" is the same as the question "Is it permissible to punch your players in the face." Yes. If they want you to and provided you have a safe word. Doesn't make it a good general policy and shouldn't be seriously entertained outside a fetish site.

The amount of straw is suffocating.

[The Glyphstone]

It's almost like different people have different definitions of 'DMPC', and evaluate statements about such based on their personal criteria. But that would be crazy, right?

[Vaz]

That's hyperbole, not strawmanning. I've got numerous complaints with your responses, but it doesn't escape that the OP's, and numerous other "DMPC's" shown aren't DMPC's.

This isn't a "gatekeepers are leaking" thing, this is literally us trying to do a service to the rest of the gaming world, by warning people off, with good reason, from encouraging DMPC's.

It is at best false advertisement, and misrepresentation. When you play games where the DM "steals" your kill because his player character is just that awesome for the twenty second time (I only wish I was joking; spent 6 months playing with him, and there was always a combat where the DM who ran his own guy to make up the numbers (3 man larty, became 4 with the DM). Dude doesn't interact. As player or character outside of combat, or when a roll needs to be made; suddenly he's rolling above average all the time, until he's asked to roll in front of everyone. Suddenly rolls are more middle of the road.

And then, after 6 weeks of playing we begin to ponder why it is that none of us have gotten a worthy scalp yet. So we start recording our damage rolls. One day during a cig break, we broke a cardinal sin and juju boundary, and found his notes on monsters. Took a few pictures and eventually recognised some monsters from the stats and descriptions. Recording everyones results (in plain sight, mind), and we realised that we killed in on my initiative step: bearimg in mind I was running an Improved Initiative Rogue with a Dex in the high 20's, and a Warblade in Heavy Armour managed to go first or second. He went first, did a small amount of damage, and I went in after, smashing 2 Crits with my 5 attacks, and 3 hits. Get the calcs out, did around 130 damage. Full round comes back again, and this worm thing is toast, according to our count, but whatever, he may have changed it. Meh.

His turn comes, rolls his 3 attacks with maxed power attack as he was usually want to do. Missed 3. Suddenly, a reroll from nowhere. Deals damage, rolls snake eyes, but it is somehow just enough to kill this thing.

That is a terrible DM, sure. But he made a DMPC to literally kill monsters he put in front, but we might as well not have been involved.

I have several other cases, but that is one.

If you want a more fitting analogy, you are driving a Fiat. It works, it gets you A to B. Others have it, and its a rust bucket, they fall apart, are rattly, loud and expensive. Cool, yours works. The otherwise undeniable truth is that many DMPC's ran as DMpC's suck, through a combination of being Bad DM's, and bad DMPC's.

We can't all be Matt Mercer, but it's not as though he has a Character outside of the odd questgiver, or he "kills off" his "DMPC's" nefore shelving them for another 20 episodes.

[Shackel]

It's almost like different people have different definitions of 'DMPC', and evaluate statements about such based on their personal criteria. But that would be crazy, right?

The issue with me in terms of Deophaun is that his definition does not seem to be any different from its strict denotation: a DM running a PC. And yet, anyone who does not agree with his extreme hyperbole on such a general term is delusional.


That's hyperbole, not strawmanning. I've got numerous complaints with your responses, but it doesn't escape that the OP's, and numerous other "DMPC's" shown aren't DMPC's.

Honestly? I don't disagree with that. I would not consider a "Group PC" to be a DMPC. A DMPC is exactly what it says on the tin.


This isn't a "gatekeepers are leaking" thing, this is literally us trying to do a service to the rest of the gaming world, by warning people off, with good reason, from encouraging DMPC's.

No, it's propagating a damaging, toxic, needlessly irrational attitude that eventually results in statements like those above. Forcing emotional response rather than any kind of logic or reason: see killem2 for what I view to be a very good 'warning' for whether or not to use DMPCs.


It is at best false advertisement, and misrepresentation. When you play games where the DM "steals" your kill because his player character is just that awesome for the twenty second time (I only wish I was joking; spent 6 months playing with him, and there was always a combat where the DM who ran his own guy to make up the numbers (3 man larty, became 4 with the DM). Dude doesn't interact. As player or character outside of combat, or when a roll needs to be made; suddenly he's rolling above average all the time, until he's asked to roll in front of everyone. Suddenly rolls are more middle of the road.

And then, after 6 weeks of playing we begin to ponder why it is that none of us have gotten a worthy scalp yet. So we start recording our damage rolls. One day during a cig break, we broke a cardinal sin and juju boundary, and found his notes on monsters. Took a few pictures and eventually recognised some monsters from the stats and descriptions. Recording everyones results (in plain sight, mind), and we realised that we killed in on my initiative step: bearimg in mind I was running an Improved Initiative Rogue with a Dex in the high 20's, and a Warblade in Heavy Armour managed to go first or second. He went first, did a small amount of damage, and I went in after, smashing 2 Crits with my 5 attacks, and 3 hits. Get the calcs out, did around 130 damage. Full round comes back again, and this worm thing is toast, according to our count, but whatever, he may have changed it. Meh.

His turn comes, rolls his 3 attacks with maxed power attack as he was usually want to do. Missed 3. Suddenly, a reroll from nowhere. Deals damage, rolls snake eyes, but it is somehow just enough to kill this thing.

That is a terrible DM, sure. But he made a DMPC to literally kill monsters he put in front, but we might as well not have been involved.

I have several other cases, but that is one.

But allow me to explain why I find the attitude so annoying particular with your own example: is this problem with the DM, or the concept of a DMPC? It's one with the DM: nothing would have changed if he had his super cool awesome Elminster-level Sue show up and do the same, he'd still be cheating. If he was hiding his rolls as a PC and 'mysteriously' getting high rolls, he'd still be cheating. It's not exclusive to DMPCs, if you feel me.

Just about every issue I hear slapped onto DMPCs as if they were the only ones capable of doing this are just as much attributable to being a bad player or DM, but, I understand where the issue comes in: it's the fact that it is far easier to screw up when you're running a DMPC due to the higher amount of meta knowledge. With that said, just because it is something difficult does not mean it is neither impossible nor bad nor downright evil as some people make it out to be. Just like some players aren't great DMs and some DMs aren't great players, there are some who just aren't great at DMPCs, and that's alright, because you kind of have to be good at both of them to keep the balance.

I refer again to killem2's post. Nothing about being a DM makes these two points impossible, and every complaint off the top of my head fits into either needing to separate player/DM knowledge and knowing how to be a good player in the first place.


If you want a more fitting analogy, you are driving a Fiat. It works, it gets you A to B. Others have it, and its a rust bucket, they fall apart, are rattly, loud and expensive. Cool, yours works. The otherwise undeniable truth is that many DMPC's ran as DMpC's suck, through a combination of being Bad DM's, and bad DMPC's.

We can't all be Matt Mercer, but it's not as though he has a Character outside of the odd questgiver, or he "kills off" his "DMPC's" nefore shelving them for another 20 episodes.

I feel like your analogy isn't really going anywhere and genuinely cannot respond negatively or positively towards it.

[Stealth Marmot]

Hm, since we seem to have some confusion on the definition, how about we try defining a DMPC as such:

A DMPC is an NPC who travels with the party,is considered a member of the party, is part of a PC class (Fighter, Cleric, etc), and is expected to be treated as if the character were controlled by a player.

How well such a character is handled, what their power is, how much narrative influence they have, etc. are all in the air.

[Shackel]

Hm, since we seem to have some confusion on the definition, how about we try defining a DMPC as such:

A DMPC is an NPC who travels with the party,is considered a member of the party, is part of a PC class (Fighter, Cleric, etc), and is expected to be treated as if the character were controlled by a player.

How well such a character is handled, what their power is, how much narrative influence they have, etc. are all in the air.

I would suggest it being simply a PC run by the DM: they run by all the same rules as any PC would, gains experience, loot, etc.