DMPC: What are some pitfalls even if they're done well?

[LeonBH]

For the purposes of scoping this thread, here's a DMPC: it's an NPC who follows the party along as part of the party, and were it not the DM controlling them, they would be very easily qualify as another PC.

These guys are tricky to use because some DMs might have them overshadow the party. Lots of people advise against it, because they tend to get better levels, all the gold, and all the magic items. The PCs are left feeling usurped in their place as protagonists when the DMPC is done badly.

But let's suppose the DM is careful enough that they actually don't have this character outshine anyone. They're there being not-helpful in combat, serving as the voice of the world for when the players are acting a bit too crazy (like when someone in the party says "let's hide this body inside our Bag of Holding"), and are tagging along for well-established narrative reasons. This is the DMPC done well -- at least, for the purposes of this discussion.

What are some of the bad things that you guys have seen come off of a DMPC done well? And how do you guys think it could have been done better?

[Cybren]

Extending plot immunities to an NPC that one would a PC, and giving them narrative focus as if they were a PC. There's no such thing as a "good" DMPC, that's already got a name. It's called an NPC.

[hymer]

What are some of the bad things that you guys have seen come off of a DMPC done well? And how do you guys think it could have been done better?

Even when not overshadowing or outshining the PCs, every bit of spotlight shone on the DMPC is likely to be taken from the PCs. As such, DMPCs should have unassuming personalities and roles, and their turn in combat should be able to be done very quickly nearly all the time. And the players ought to have the option of getting rid of the DMPC without much trouble.

I've found that some players love to have a particular NPC accompany them, whether for their mechanical aspects or for the roleplaying (or some combination), while one of my players in particular absolutely hates having NPCs around. He wants the PCs to do everything themselves, even to the point that he somewhat resents going to a temple to deal with diseases and curses. That makes for an impossible balance as far as the DM is concerned. So consider your players, and be sure it's possible for them to get rid of that DMPC if they so choose.

[Mhl7]

There's no such thing as a "good" DMPC, that's already got a name. It's called an NPC.

That's it.

[LeonBH]

Extending plot immunities to an NPC that one would a PC, and giving them narrative focus as if they were a PC. There's no such thing as a "good" DMPC, that's already got a name. It's called an NPC.

The second sentence here seems like a religious and semantic argument. Religious in that it sounds like doctrine ("thou shalt not use a DMPC"); semantic in that, we're probably still talking about the same thing if we call it an NPC or a DMPC.

That said, what do you mean about plot immunities? I agree with the narrative focus bit though. An NPC shouldn't really have a storyline more prominent than the PCs, like cutscenes that involve only that NPC.


Even when not overshadowing or outshining the PCs, every bit of spotlight shone on the DMPC is likely to be taken from the PCs. As such, DMPCs should have unassuming personalities and roles, and their turn in combat should be able to be done very quickly nearly all the time. And the players ought to have the option of getting rid of the DMPC without much trouble.

I've found that some players love to have a particular NPC accompany them, whether for their mechanical aspects or for the roleplaying (or some combination), while one of my players in particular absolutely hates having NPCs around. He wants the PCs to do everything themselves, even to the point that he somewhat resents going to a temple to deal with diseases and curses. That makes for an impossible balance as far as the DM is concerned. So consider your players, and be sure it's possible for them to get rid of that DMPC if they so choose.

IMO, sometimes you should take the DMPC out of combat rather quickly -- have them go elsewhere and just then start combat. It creates an air of suspicion around the DMPC too, because why is this guy never around when we fight?

How did you balance the player who liked having an NPC around and the player who hated it?

[GameRoomReviews]

I recently played in a game where the DM used a DMPC to constantly save the lvl 4 party from all the Epic stuff he had fun throwing at us. The setting was very high fantasy with lots of over powered items and narrative stuff thrown into combat. It was a necessary tool given how the game was set up, but I would have preferred a game that was actual balanced to the character level even if that meant it was less 'epic'.

[Unoriginal]

Having NPCs helping the PCs in combat or while traveling is not bad. PCs can have mentors, allies, powerful friends, weak friends, mercenaries, minions, guides and all that jazz without problem.

Having a NPC that's acting like another PC, without any benefit from the position of being played by the DM, is pretty different, but it might work. But that kind of DMPC should be equal with the PCs in all points. They don't get authority, or knowledge, or the like.




I recently played in a game where the DM used a DMPC to constantly save the lvl 4 party from all the Epic stuff he had fun throwing at us. The setting was very high fantasy with lots of over powered items and narrative stuff thrown into combat. It was a necessary tool given how the game was set up, but I would have preferred a game that was actual balanced to the character level even if that meant it was less 'epic'.

It wasn't necessary, it was the DM going "You're totally outclassed and shouldn't be adventuring in that world at all, but look! This guy is so awesome and great and amazing that he'll use his superiority to help you irrelevant people."

If you want an Epic, you make the PCs epic, you don't have them be unable to survive.

[LeonBH]

I recently played in a game where the DM used a DMPC to constantly save the lvl 4 party from all the Epic stuff he had fun throwing at us. The setting was very high fantasy with lots of over powered items and narrative stuff thrown into combat. It was a necessary tool given how the game was set up, but I would have preferred a game that was actual balanced to the character level even if that meant it was less 'epic'.

Sorry to hear that. I imagine it's tough to pull off a DMPC well, but that sounds like the DM had the design wrong from the get go. How did he have the DMPC save your party? Killed all the monsters? Or was he always giving you a means of escaping?

[hymer]

How did you balance the player who liked having an NPC around and the player who hated it?

It was a West Marches-style campaign when I found it out, and that solved the problem for me, by having the players decide in a natural way whether they wanted to bring any NPCs along on any given mission. The one player would argue against it when he was present, and mostly get his way. When he wasn't present, the others would decide on other merits whether to bring an NPC along.

In campaigns since then, when this player has been involved, I've simply avoided having NPCs that go with the party. Sometimes a specialist NPC would need to be brought along for a particular skill or ability (often spells), but they'd part ways as soon as they were done.

[Beelzebubba]

I don't trust them.

If they outshine us, well, yeah. That sucks.

If they're the perfect accomplice or errand runner, I'm always waiting for the DM to have them turn against us as some plot hook. Which has happened more than once.

If they're a hilarious colorful character that the DM uses to move the plot forward sometimes, I then feel like we're being overtly railroaded.

The *only* way the've been entirely good is when it's an escort mission of some sort. Our reason to be there is because of them, it's temporary, and they are not a party member. They can be problematic, funny, whatever, but we never have to rely on them - they rely on us.

[LeonBH]

reply

Sounds reasonable. Glad it worked out for you. Though I find it some level of metagaming for a character to hate people on the basis that they're NPCs and not PCs. In the narrative of the game, characters aren't supposed to know they're fictional beings controlled by humans in real life, so they can't discriminate based on that :P But yeah, sounds like a problem well handled.


I don't trust them.

If they outshine us, well, yeah. That sucks.

If they're the perfect accomplice or errand runner, I'm always waiting for the DM to have them turn against us as some plot hook. Which has happened more than once.

If they're a hilarious colorful character that the DM uses to move the plot forward sometimes, I then feel like we're being overtly railroaded.

The *only* way the've been entirely good is when it's an escort mission of some sort. Our reason to be there is because of them, it's temporary, and they are not a party member. They can be problematic, funny, whatever, but we never have to rely on them - they rely on us.

What about an NPC who simply tags along and acts like a normal PC? I think you may not have yet experienced a reasonably well-run DMPC. Which is fair, as they are truly difficult to pull off. Usually they're put in the party for rounding out a game with too few players, and even then they're not easy to run.

A hilariously colorful character shouldn't come as a threat though. It lets the DM play a fun, non-threatening NPC. And the DM is always railroading the party to some extent. That's how they hand out quests.


I played in a campaign where three NPCs were tagging along with the party.

One was the MacGuffin that happened to be a child. Mostly just a thing to bring from point A to point B.

One was the ranger / wet nurse we used to carry the MacGuffin. Oddly, the DM once told me he considered her to be his character in the party. I think that's odd because I found her to have about as much presence as the MacGuffin, and also because...

One was a mithral dragon, an immortal wyrm who lives among the gods and breathes radiance. That one I regarded as a textbook DMPC. And no, having the win button be busy somewhere else, in true Gandalf tradition, did nothing to make us feel more relevant.

Wow. I would have talked to the DM outside the game about that. It's a bit crazy to have God on your side and still have a meaningful adventure, I'll agree with you there.

[Steampunkette]

I almost always add a DMPC to my parties. I only ever play with 3-4 people and they usually need one role filled that the DMPC takes.

Outside of their role in the combat/exploration pillar that they're filling, I treat them as two things for the party:

1) Someone to talk to, during downtime. Generally between sessions I'll let players do one-on-one RP sessions, often with the DMPC or with other NPCs if they're somewhere where other NPCs exist to talk to, just to keep things fresh and let them explore more of their character.

2) Info Dump. My players don't know the settings I run in as well as I do, so I've got the NPC on hand to give them helpful information they wouldn't otherwise have without it being a completely disconnected monologue of "This is what your character should know" in a high and mighty talking down at the player for not doing their homework type manner.

Most of the time they're either a Cleric or a Rogue, so their combat turn is often spent on healing or casting bless, if cleric, or dashing in to give aid or sneak attack someone before they dash out. Not a whole lot of time spent on their actions. Out of combat the Clerics tend to stay toward the middle of the party while the rogues do the scouting.

So far? It's worked out very well at my table. I still worry that spotlight might get stolen, or that important enemies might die by the DMPC's hand, but I do my best to use the DMPC to support player action, rather than direct.

[LeonBH]

So far? It's worked out very well at my table. I still worry that spotlight might get stolen, or that important enemies might die by the DMPC's hand, but I do my best to use the DMPC to support player action, rather than direct.

I'm glad. I know there are a few DMs who actually can and do run DMPCs despite the hatefest against them, and I know the skilled ones can make it so that these characters add to the story and immersion, rather than take away from it.

How much experience have you had running DMPCs? And do you fudge rolls to prevent those dreaded last hits against important enemies? Do your players think the game is better for having them?

[Sir cryosin]

This is a heavy opinionated topic just like alignment.
Now I am a new DM I have never had a DM use a DMnpc.
I have two NPC's with the group I had planned to kill one off before it was a tag a long. But players always surprise you and kept her alive. So now the party has two npc in the group. I wrote one out by having her join a different adventuring party that they were traveling with for a while in game. So that just left the party with the other sister. The party has come to be protective of the girls and don't mind have them along. I also had a talk with my group before. We made them part of the party. We talked about what classes they will be and they have say in everything about the NPC's.

No in combat I just have her do simple thing cast a cantrip for most part. If it get tough she helps a bit more but. I'm letting my 3 players shine with her in the background supporting them.

I have rules that I follow when running a party npc.
1. Discuss every aspect of the NPC and any decision making with the party about the NPC.
2. The NPC stays 1level behind the party. (This is to keep the party a bit more powerful.)
3. Never give the NPC any magic items. Let the party out fit the NPC.
4. I don't use exp I use mile stones. But if I did I would not give the NPC exp but only level it when the party does.
5. Never make the NPC the star of the show.
6. Always take the supporting roll in combat. ( If a PC gos down go over and heal if no healing the use a medkit. If the party needs a bit more damage ramp up my damage. Move into flanking position to give advantage. Ect.)
7. Do not use DM meta knowledge. ( If I throw a monster with some kind of resistance. I will not use anything that bypasses that resistance until the party realizes that the monster has that resistance and they let everybody else know.)
8. I have there turn already done by the time it there turn so I describe What there doing. ( So that the players can get to there turn quicker. The DM has planly of time while players are thinking and rolling so you can get all your dice roll for the NPC done before there turn adjust when needed.)

[solidork]

If you're a good enough DM and are telling the right kind of story, you can break pretty much every guideline people have about NPCs in the party.
It's not easy though, and if you mess it up it could be pretty bad. I personally wouldn't try it.

Examples:
Mr. Shopping's "Detroit Rock City" (Werewolf: the Forsaken) (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?446663-Werewolf-The-Forsaken-quot-Detroit-Rock-City-quot)
Mr. Shopping's "The Ties that Bind" (Werewolf: the Forsaken) (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?378138-Werewolf-the-Forsaken-quot-The-Ties-That-Bind-quot)
Kat Kuhl's "Campaign Podcast" (Star Wars: Edge of the Empire) (http://oneshotpodcast.com/category/campaign/)

[DragonSorcererX]

Since I have only one PC in my game, I also have one DMPC, a Half-Elf Lore Bard and she is basically a Healer and the face of the group but Intelligence is her dump stat, so she is not the brains of the group, while the PC is an EK with high intelligence, so she lets him lead.

[jaappleton]

I almost always add a DMPC to my parties. I only ever play with 3-4 people and they usually need one role filled that the DMPC takes.

Outside of their role in the combat/exploration pillar that they're filling, I treat them as two things for the party:

1) Someone to talk to, during downtime. Generally between sessions I'll let players do one-on-one RP sessions, often with the DMPC or with other NPCs if they're somewhere where other NPCs exist to talk to, just to keep things fresh and let them explore more of their character.

2) Info Dump. My players don't know the settings I run in as well as I do, so I've got the NPC on hand to give them helpful information they wouldn't otherwise have without it being a completely disconnected monologue of "This is what your character should know" in a high and mighty talking down at the player for not doing their homework type manner.

Most of the time they're either a Cleric or a Rogue, so their combat turn is often spent on healing or casting bless, if cleric, or dashing in to give aid or sneak attack someone before they dash out. Not a whole lot of time spent on their actions. Out of combat the Clerics tend to stay toward the middle of the party while the rogues do the scouting.

So far? It's worked out very well at my table. I still worry that spotlight might get stolen, or that important enemies might die by the DMPC's hand, but I do my best to use the DMPC to support player action, rather than direct.

This is a spectacular ways to handle the DMPC. Punkette gets it.

The golden rule of the DMPC is, if they ever get involved in combat, is to never outshine the players. And if possible, fill a role the party lacks.

Example: Don't have a healer? That DMPC is a Cleric. Just sit back, take a couple hits, throw out some heals to help the party. It's their show, they're in the spotlight. Help them shine.

Never, ever, take the spotlight from the player characters.

Aside from that, have some knowledge to help guide the party along.

"Brave Light Warriors, go kill the Necromancer in the Wailing Marshes!"
"We know nothing about that area or who the Necromancer is."
"Accompanying you is Dave the Cleric, whose Order was decimated by the Necromancer. He'll show you the way."

"Dave, do we go through the forest or over the mountain pass?"
"Well, both ways have their merits. Here you might expect ____, and there you might expect ____"

Never make decisions for the party. It's still their time, after all.

And they can grow to appreciate and love your DMPC. If Dave the Cleric gets knocked below 0 HP, and they care for reasons more than "OUR HEALBOT IS DED!!!", you did something right.

[Beelzebubba]

I think you may not have yet experienced a reasonably well-run DMPC.

I've been playing since Blue Box in 1978. I've seen a few.

Just a few.

And lots and lots of inadvertently awful ones.

[Steampunkette]

I'm glad. I know there are a few DMs who actually can and do run DMPCs despite the hatefest against them, and I know the skilled ones can make it so that these characters add to the story and immersion, rather than take away from it.

How much experience have you had running DMPCs? And do you fudge rolls to prevent those dreaded last hits against important enemies? Do your players think the game is better for having them?

I've been running D&D games since 2e. And other systems, too. Any time I had a party of 3 I ran a DMPC, and sometimes with a party of 4, if there was a role unfulfilled.

I don't fudge rolls for DMPCs. Ever.

Instead, since I know the bad guy is near death, I have the DMPC do something that sets up the next player to win. Like hitting the lever to seal the chamber so the baddie cannot escape, or open the lava pit so the heroes can knock the enemy down into it. Or just use the Aid action to improve someone else's chances of killing the BBEG.

But I don't do that with, like, common goblins. A DMPC will squish the head of a guard if it helps the party. It's just the important characters they hand the kill off on.

[Cybren]

The second sentence here seems like a religious and semantic argument. Religious in that it sounds like doctrine ("thou shalt not use a DMPC"); semantic in that, we're probably still talking about the same thing if we call it an NPC or a DMPC.

That said, what do you mean about plot immunities? I agree with the narrative focus bit though. An NPC shouldn't really have a storyline more prominent than the PCs, like cutscenes that involve only that NPC.

It's not meant to be an argument, it's just an observation. If you play a DMPC "correctly" it's indistinguishable from an NPC, so the only thing you 'gain' by using the DMPC label is a clenching reaction in your players and an intellectual framing that predisposes you towards bad gameplay. There should be no difference between having Sarah Stankwater the DMPC and Ginny the Rat the NPC travelling with the party. You as a DM should not ascribe either one more narrative importance beyond what the interaction with the players requires, and should not invest any more emotional stake in the success, development, or life of either.

[Steampunkette]

It's not meant to be an argument, it's just an observation. If you play a DMPC "correctly" it's indistinguishable from an NPC, so the only thing you 'gain' by using the DMPC label is a clenching reaction in your players and an intellectual framing that predisposes you towards bad gameplay. There should be no difference between having Sarah Stankwater the DMPC and Ginny the Rat the NPC travelling with the party. You as a DM should not ascribe either one more narrative importance beyond what the interaction with the players requires, and should not invest any more emotional stake in the success, development, or life of either.

That is certainly one very negative way to look at it.

I look at it as a designation which frames the character as more than a typical NPC to the party, but less than a true PC. They will be a stalwart companion, have a continuing personality for interaction, and work to make things easier for the other members of the party...

My players also understand that I do it, in part, so I can get some Party-Participation rather than being constantly external to the player dynamics, as I am almost invariably the DM in any game that we play.

Vicarious exultation and communal enjoyment of victory. It also lets me lightly stack the deck in the PC's favor since I roll all dice openly and thus cannot fudge in their favor.

[Cybren]

it's negative in that I think DMPCs are bad, yes. Paradoxically, I also think sometimes bad things are good.

[LeonBH]

snip

All good roles and rules for these characters. It seems like your table enjoys them too, since they themselves asked the NPC to go with them. Good job for a new DM :)


Since I have only one PC in my game, I also have one DMPC, a Half-Elf Lore Bard and she is basically a Healer and the face of the group but Intelligence is her dump stat, so she is not the brains of the group, while the PC is an EK with high intelligence, so she lets him lead.

Props to you for running a 1 on 1 game! Bard is definitely a good fit for any kind of support role.


snip

Good insight. Yep, the DMPC should serve as a voice of the world, since players can only know the information the DM tells them. Playing as a background character is definitely something the DMPC has to do -- don't give them a +5 item that kills the dragon, but heal the players when the dragon puts them down.


I've been running D&D games since 2e. And other systems, too. Any time I had a party of 3 I ran a DMPC, and sometimes with a party of 4, if there was a role unfulfilled.

I don't fudge rolls for DMPCs. Ever.

Instead, since I know the bad guy is near death, I have the DMPC do something that sets up the next player to win. Like hitting the lever to seal the chamber so the baddie cannot escape, or open the lava pit so the heroes can knock the enemy down into it. Or just use the Aid action to improve someone else's chances of killing the BBEG.

But I don't do that with, like, common goblins. A DMPC will squish the head of a guard if it helps the party. It's just the important characters they hand the kill off on.

This is true, the Help action is definitely a great help (ha!), especially when it's setting up the magnificent kill for someone else. To be honest, this is actually appealing as a true player character concept as well. The Rogue Mastermind comes to mind.

[Anonymouswizard]

I recently played in a game where the DM used a DMPC to constantly save the lvl 4 party from all the Epic stuff he had fun throwing at us. The setting was very high fantasy with lots of over powered items and narrative stuff thrown into combat. It was a necessary tool given how the game was set up, but I would have preferred a game that was actual balanced to the character level even if that meant it was less 'epic'.

Wow, the only kind of DMPC to approach 'villain DMPC' (don't know what it is? Look up the SUE Files) in awfulness, the 'I'll save you pitiful weaklings' DMPC.

I dislike DMPCs on principle, although I'm not against NPCs that travel with the party as experts, charges, or hirelings. It's just something that I've never personally seem done right, they're either too powerful (once I managed to talk a GM into making their GMPC equal in power to the party. However they'd never agreed not to give the little druid princeling effectively infinite money [yes, a prince who had run away from home to become a druid had an arbitrarily large sack of gold pieces on his person, I am not kidding, offing him was postponed until we had the skills to forge a will], so he had the best gear and funded everyone's inn rooms) or too important to the story. I mean, I don't do it well either, but I also tend not to do it.

I personally think that the power curve of D&D has a big problem on the 'filling in party roles side', it's always nice to have everyone but sometimes you can't. While some games solve this by making hiring help viable (Savage Worlds not only expects players to cart around some extra bodies for fights, it also has players controlling allied Extras to keep them engaged*), so if you don't have a mage but think it might be useful just hop over to the local academy and see if anybody's willing to sign a contract, in addition to the handful of mercenaries you probably have, in D&D you can only really add another full character to the party.

* Then again Extras go down in a good hit, that's why you can cart around 10-20 mooks in addition to a full group of PCs. The game also suggests that if players have a tendency to just run their minions at the enemy while they take cover you should occasionally spring a hard encounter on them when they're low on help just to teach them to be a bit more cautious.

[Steampunkette]

The worst DMPC I ever say was Siul Zurc Martel.

He was the super mary sue. He was put into the party to shine over everyone when he was a DMPC party member. In another game he was our Mentor/Contact. In all cases he was roleplayed as overpowered amazing superhero.

The DM's Name? Luis Cruz. He literally just turned his own name around for an author-insert character. And the guy had been running games for 20ish years (I met him when I hit my 20s, he was in his 30s at the time).

Turns out, Siul Zurc Martel was a character he started playing when he was 12-13 and once he maxed out level he just decided to keep using him in all his campaign worlds 'cause why not?

I, truly, hated that character. It was a great lesson in all the things a DMPC should not do.

[Hathorym]

I once ran a campaign with a DMPC. The party discovered her trapped in status in an old dungeon. I thought they were just going to tell her the way was clear and be done with it. Instead, they brought her along.

She ended up staying with the party until near the end of the campaign when she was captured and killed by the BBEG. They had grown attached to her and her role in the party, but she in no way directed or usurped it. She eventually had her own storyline that the PCs pursued because they wanted to do so. I went out of my way to ensure she was slightly less than an equal voice in the party, but they insisted her opinion was just as valid.

It was a tightrope walk to be sure. I never allowed her to "save the day" unless it was within character. She never had more information than any PC because she was from the distant past and never studied anything more than swordplay. I did everything I could to keep her real and not an extension of my agendas in any way.

After she died, the PCs went ballistic. They wanted revenge, and they were going to make sure her name and contribution was remembered.

I think it worked because it was organic. I haven't tried since.

[Citan]

Extending plot immunities to an NPC that one would a PC, and giving them narrative focus as if they were a PC. There's no such thing as a "good" DMPC, that's already got a name. It's called an NPC.


That's it.
Great way to end a discussion before it even started with a heavily subjective and totally unfounded "argument".

GG guys, these were really the most useless posts I read since some time.
It's like I had been telling something like "Guys who don't like DMPC would be bad DM in the first place". Helpful? Certainly not...


Even when not overshadowing or outshining the PCs, every bit of spotlight shone on the DMPC is likely to be taken from the PCs. As such, DMPCs should have unassuming personalities and roles, and their turn in combat should be able to be done very quickly nearly all the time. And the players ought to have the option of getting rid of the DMPC without much trouble.

Strongly disagree with this as well.
In my experience, DMPC are usually rare in big parties, but extremely common in <=3 parties.

Also, in my opinion, should be distinguished...
1. The "NPC" in the common meaning, aka "people who are just here to fulfill a very specific role, but nobody cares about their story or motives".
These ones are the random merchant/healer/inn manager.

2. The "NPC" that actually hold valuable information or interaction planned by the DM, or any NPC that players like to be with.
These guys don't actually require any background, but I find that I will usually bring some (either prepared or on the fly) to give some presence and personality to the scenes (and give a direction to improvize into, should a player try and started a relationship more interesting than "How much? -I'll take that -Bye").

3. The "NPC" that are actually important characters in the plot or settings.
These guys I usually create the same as PCs, because they have clear behaviour, riches and objectives, and characterizing them with classes helps much imo creating interesting characters which you as a DM can make live in a credible manner (since what you defined in the first place limits your choice of action).
And because of that/thanks to that, these guys may become DMPC at any time, for an unpredictable amount of time.


The second category has always the potential to "become more" (aka the third one) unless you are playing a very strictly guidelined campaign.

The third category has always a strong potential to become a DMPC.

In games that have a sandbox aspect, I usually make the effort of having a dozen different backgrounds/archetypes that I can use on the fly depending on what my players are looking to do, or who they want to interact with.
This allows me to give variable "density" to the character and, once it went up to the 3rd category, decide if/how he should become a DMPC, and for how much time.

It may be a Druid that accepts to heal the group in exchange of being escorted through a dangerous region.

A Fighter that agrees to act as a protector for a time in exchange for the party Wizard helping him infiltrate a heavily guarded place through magic.

A Cleric that is sent by his Church because the party has been tasked with the retrieval of a precious relic stolen by a powerful group of thugs, or maybe liberate a region from a seemingly endless horde of zombies. Although he is officially here to supervize and control, he may help the party with Bless / Healing Words if need be (because it's still in his interest).

A Rogue that the party hired because themselves have little "roguish" ability, and they need someone reliable to scout for a mission, or maybe just quietly steal something important from someone in a tavern.

Or a Sorcerer that incites the players in going with him to slay a powerful Dragon, promising them riches (which exist), but being himself really interested in one magical treasure held by the Dragon.

Or a Necromancer Wizard that tries to lure them into a trap because he would like to add them to his personal undead guards.

Otherwise said, you can imagine an infinite variety of situations where DMPC can provide fun and help to the group without any drawbacks.

>>> DMPC is a tool. As such, as any other tool, it is neutral. The only difference with other tools you have as a DM is that you shape this one as you see fit...
-To answer a need that cannot be covered by a single, brainless, tasteless NPC...
- Depending on what you think the party may need (or explicitely asks) or what could make for fun interactions/plot twists.
Since you create from scratch, it's up to you to create roleplay limitations in the background to help you avoid any tiptoeing on player's strengths or otherwise depriving them of their "spotlight moments".
And creating DMPC also helps you define ways to help your party that will be credible/acceptable to them (since you -supposedly- follow all the same rules as them) and helps balance the encounters if need be, much more easily that some "NPC" on which you would randomly stack characteristics and features.

There is no "DMPC are inherently bad". Telling otherwise is plain stupid, sorry for the harsh truth.

There are only DM.
DMs (maybe unexperienced in this particular field, or in general) who may make plain mistakes at times (who never did), which can affect either on DMPC management or other things that can break player fun/immersion (Surprise? Stealth? Favoring RAW over ROC?)
And DMs which uses DMPC to make their own fun, with or without players's feedback.

The former should be encouraged, because once they get better at designing and playing their DMPC, they can bring tremendous fun to their players.

The latter should be contronted with (or outright avoided), because they put their own fun above the fun of other players or group as a whole, so DMPC or not, they will certainly find ways to ruin your fun in the long run.

When you try and run a DMPC, as long as you...
- Asked yourself "what is the party strongly missing" when creating it...
- Keep in mind "this character is here to help players have fun" (whether by helping or antagonizing, it's irrelevant to the point).
- Ask feedback from players at each session's end (and take it into account obviously ^^).
There is very little risk you make big mistakes that would break fun/immersion, and your players will help iron out the little ones. :)

[LeonBH]

The worst DMPC I ever say was Siul Zurc Martel.

He was the super mary sue. He was put into the party to shine over everyone when he was a DMPC party member. In another game he was our Mentor/Contact. In all cases he was roleplayed as overpowered amazing superhero.

The DM's Name? Luis Cruz. He literally just turned his own name around for an author-insert character. And the guy had been running games for 20ish years (I met him when I hit my 20s, he was in his 30s at the time).

Turns out, Siul Zurc Martel was a character he started playing when he was 12-13 and once he maxed out level he just decided to keep using him in all his campaign worlds 'cause why not?

I, truly, hated that character. It was a great lesson in all the things a DMPC should not do.

Sometimes, you need to taste bitter to know what is sweet.


I once ran a campaign with a DMPC. The party discovered her trapped in status in an old dungeon. I thought they were just going to tell her the way was clear and be done with it. Instead, they brought her along.

She ended up staying with the party until near the end of the campaign when she was captured and killed by the BBEG. They had grown attached to her and her role in the party, but she in no way directed or usurped it. She eventually had her own storyline that the PCs pursued because they wanted to do so. I went out of my way to ensure she was slightly less than an equal voice in the party, but they insisted her opinion was just as valid.

It was a tightrope walk to be sure. I never allowed her to "save the day" unless it was within character. She never had more information than any PC because she was from the distant past and never studied anything more than swordplay. I did everything I could to keep her real and not an extension of my agendas in anyway.

After she died, the PCs went ballistic. They wanted revenge, and they were going to make sure her name and contribution was remembered.

This sounds like amazing DM work. Despite not planning on it happening, you pulled it off well. Having the DMPC be attached to the party emotionally is especially great. Would have loved to be there when the party went ballistic after her death.

[Sir cryosin]

Great way to end a discussion before it even started with a heavily subjective and totally unfounded "argument".

GG guys, these were really the most useless posts I read since some time.
It's like I had been telling something like "Guys who don't like DMPC would be bad DM in the first place". Helpful? Certainly not...


Strongly disagree with this as well.
In my experience, DMPC are usually rare in big parties, but extremely common in <=3 parties.

Also, in my opinion, should be distinguished...
1. The "NPC" in the common meaning, aka "people who are just here to fulfill a very specific role, but nobody cares about their story or motives".
These ones are the random merchant/healer/inn manager.

2. The "NPC" that actually hold valuable information or interaction planned by the DM, or any NPC that players like to be with.
These guys don't actually require any background, but I find that I will usually bring some (either prepared or on the fly) to give some presence and personality to the scenes (and give a direction to improvize into, should a player try and started a relationship more interesting than "How much? -I'll take that -Bye").

3. The "NPC" that are actually important characters in the plot or settings.
These guys I usually create the same as PCs, because they have clear behaviour, riches and objectives, and characterizing them with classes helps much imo creating interesting characters which you as a DM can make live in a credible manner (since what you defined in the first place limits your choice of action).
And because of that/thanks to that, these guys may become DMPC at any time, for an unpredictable amount of time.


The second category has always the potential to "become more" (aka the third one) unless you are playing a very strictly guidelined campaign.

The third category has always a strong potential to become a DMPC.

In games that have a sandbox aspect, I usually make the effort of having a dozen different backgrounds/archetypes that I can use on the fly depending on what my players are looking to do, or who they want to interact with.
This allows me to give variable "density" to the character and, once it went up to the 3rd category, decide if/how he should become a DMPC, and for how much time.

It may be a Druid that accepts to heal the group in exchange of being escorted through a dangerous region.

A Fighter that agrees to act as a protector for a time in exchange for the party Wizard helping him infiltrate a heavily guarded place through magic.

A Cleric that is sent by his Church because the party has been tasked with the retrieval of a precious relic stolen by a powerful group of thugs, or maybe liberate a region from a seemingly endless horde of zombies. Although he is officially here to supervize and control, he may help the party with Bless / Healing Words if need be (because it's still in his interest).

A Rogue that the party hired because themselves have little "roguish" ability, and they need someone reliable to scout for a mission, or maybe just quietly steal something important from someone in a tavern.

Or a Sorcerer that incites the players in going with him to slay a powerful Dragon, promising them riches (which exist), but being himself really interested in one magical treasure held by the Dragon.

Or a Necromancer Wizard that tries to lure them into a trap because he would like to add them to his personal undead guards.

Otherwise said, you can imagine an infinite variety of situations where DMPC can provide fun and help to the group without any drawbacks.

>>> DMPC is a tool. As such, as any other tool, it is neutral. The only difference with other tools you have as a DM is that you shape this one as you see fit...
-To answer a need that cannot be covered by a single, brainless, tasteless NPC...
- Depending on what you think the party may need (or explicitely asks) or what could make for fun interactions/plot twists.
Since you create from scratch, it's up to you to create roleplay limitations in the background to help you avoid any tiptoeing on player's strengths or otherwise depriving them of their "spotlight moments".
And creating DMPC also helps you define ways to help your party that will be credible/acceptable to them (since you -supposedly- follow all the same rules as them) and helps balance the encounters if need be, much more easily that some "NPC" on which you would randomly stack characteristics and features.

There is no "DMPC are inherently bad". Telling otherwise is plain stupid, sorry for the harsh truth.

There are only DM.
DMs (maybe unexperienced in this particular field, or in general) who may make plain mistakes at times (who never did), which can affect either on DMPC management or other things that can break player fun/immersion (Surprise? Stealth? Favoring RAW over ROC?)
And DMs which uses DMPC to make their own fun, with or without players's feedback.

The former should be encouraged, because once they get better at designing and playing their DMPC, they can bring tremendous fun to their players.

The latter should be contronted with (or outright avoided), because they put their own fun above the fun of other players or group as a whole, so DMPC or not, they will certainly find ways to ruin your fun in the long run.

When you try and run a DMPC, as long as you...
- Asked yourself "what is the party strongly missing" when creating it...
- Keep in mind "this character is here to help players have fun" (whether by helping or antagonizing, it's irrelevant to the point).
- Ask feedback from players at each session's end (and take it into account obviously ^^).
There is very little risk you make big mistakes that would break fun/immersion, and your players will help iron out the little ones. :)

I agree with everything you said. It is also how I approach my DMnpc for my group of 3 players. I have my 8 rules for my NPC and keep to them. I wanted to only introduce my party to one. But they ended up saving her sister so for a few sessions they had two but. I felt that one I couldn't roll play both. And two they didn't need two. So I had one sister get close to a different group of Adventures that the party was traveling with on and when it was time for the group of Adventures to leave the one of the sister left with them.

[Hrugner]

Major pit falls all seem to revolve around filling a niche or role that one or more of the party members could fill and would like to fill. Another major pitfall is influencing the decisions available to the players through the NPC. The last is making an effort to warp the story around keeping that NPC in the party even if they should leave or the players don't want them there.

Keeping them less powerful than the party, not making them real party members, and letting them die when it happens all seem to help considerably.

[The Glyphstone]

The biggest pitfall of a DMPC is asking other people on the internet how to use them well, as demonstrated here. It always ends up in a heated arguement about semantics and tautologies, where the anecdotes fly thick and fast.

[Cybren]

Great way to end a discussion before it even started with a heavily subjective and totally unfounded "argument".

GG guys, these were really the most useless posts I read since some time.
It's like I had been telling something like "Guys who don't like DMPC would be bad DM in the first place". Helpful? Certainly not...


You're free to disagree, but that doesn't change that the average player doesn't like DMPCs, even if you, as a DM, think you totally figured it out no really mine are good.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think the best rule for DMPCs is this: Don't have one if you have 6 or more players. Most DMs tend to run into some difficulty at the six person range and need to keep their focus, even if they can do it well. At that point, most roles are probably filled, and if not...Maybe the campaign could do with some tweaking (such as a stealth campaign for a group of 5 rogues and 1 ranger) or items being distributed (such as healing items) would be a simpler fix.

As a player, I don't mind a DMPC. If that's what it takes for the DM to have fun, okay, we can work with this. I just think that the DMPC really needs to take on a supportive or lesser role in roleplay, and needs to fulfill a necessary role in combat. I would expand on what makes one enjoyable, but I think others have done better than I could have.

Oddly, I'm currently in a game where I think the DM got an accidental DMPC.

On the other hand, having the DMPC for info dumps CAN be a good thing. You're talking to your buddy from foreign lands about places they have been to. Makes sense, and puts a bit of a personal flare on the information. One hazard of this is if anyone has invested heavily in knowledge rolls. I think if you have done this, you really cannot complain about the DM giving you the infodump exposition, unless your group has another system in place. But having to rely on a DMPC when you have a +11 modifier to history? That's...Weird. For me, that'd be pretty annoying.

[Contrast]

I almost always add a DMPC to my parties. I only ever play with 3-4 people and they usually need one role filled that the DMPC takes.


In my experience, DMPC are usually rare in big parties, but extremely common in <=3 parties.

I don't know if this is a D&D thing and my background from starting in other systems is showing but is this a common thing? No game I've ever played in has considered adding NPCs to fill rolls as necessary - if we didn't have enough players to cover something, we just made our plans on the assumption we wouldn't have access to that thing rather than getting the DM to parachute an NPC in. My D&D group is reasonably large so this didn't really come up there. I get that this might have been necesary in older editions but is it really still needed in 5E? We've been getting on fine without a cleric and rogues don't really do anything that anyone else couldn't take a stab at.


2) Info Dump. My players don't know the settings I run in as well as I do, so I've got the NPC on hand to give them helpful information they wouldn't otherwise have without it being a completely disconnected monologue of "This is what your character should know" in a high and mighty talking down at the player for not doing their homework type manner.

On topic, this was the area I was going highlight as potentially being an issue even with a DMPC that the players don't mind being there and is otherwise working fine (which was the starting point outlined in the OP). Its easy for the players themselves to fall back on the DMPC too much. Stuck? Just ask the DMPC what to do. As the DM you're then in a bit of a difficult spot as you either give bad advice and leave a bad taste in the players mouths if they followed it (or annoyed at you as they're stuck and you're just sitting there giving them hassle) or give good advice and the players become disincentivised to actually do stuff themselves (because the DM is always going to be able to come up with the perfect plan).

[Grimjudgment]

In a campaign I'm currently running, I had made an NPC that was designed to be with the party due to the noble's retainer trait. Georgi started as a cart jockey, cook and errand guy to help the party travel more efficiently. Now, the NPC started out flat and didn't have any depth until I had Georgi deliver the party some mail that he had received. He handed all of it to the noble and said "I'd have sorted the group's mail, but I cannot read" in a pseudo Russian accent that was poorly done, and the players began to converse with him.


Fast forward to another session and the party's cart was attacked and they called for Georgi to help in the combat, which he had never done before.

One of the players were banished as per the spell and Georgi threw a rock, hit, and broke the enemy's concentration. They then bought this dude leather armor, a crossbow and gave him a huge raise.

It's now gotten to the point where the artistic member of my group has drawn memes of the man.

Little did they know, he was based off of Jorji Costava from Papers please... They will never know.

[Cybren]

In a campaign I'm currently running, I had made an NPC that was designed to be with the party due to the noble's retainer trait. Georgi started as a cart jockey, cook and errand guy to help the party travel more efficiently. Now, the NPC started out flat and didn't have any depth until I had Georgi deliver the party some mail that he had received. He handed all of it to the noble and said "I'd have sorted the group's mail, but I cannot read" in a pseudo Russian accent that was poorly done, and the players began to converse with him.


Fast forward to another session and the party's cart was attacked and they called for Georgi to help in the combat, which he had never done before.

One of the players were banished as per the spell and Georgi threw a rock, hit, and broke the enemy's concentration. They then bought this dude leather armor, a crossbow and gave him a huge raise.

It's now gotten to the point where the artistic member of my group has drawn memes of the man.

Little did they know, he was based off of Jorji Costava from Papers please... They will never know.

That's just an NPC, and is the sort of thing that I mean when i say that a "good" DMPC is just an NPC.

[Contrast]

That's just an NPC, and is the sort of thing that I mean when i say that a "good" DMPC is just an NPC.

Cool. On topic, what would you say are the potential pitfalls of running an NPC who spends a lot of time with the party then? :smallconfused:

[Cybren]

Cool. On topic, what would you say are the potential pitfalls of running an NPC who spends a lot of time with the party then? :smallconfused:

NPCs can spend a lot of time with the party. An entire campaign can go by with an NPC being present with the party without it being a DMPC. Being a DMPC involves the DM taking one (or more) NPCs and making them More Special narratively, treating them with the same agency and autonomy they would a player run PC.

[LeonBH]

The biggest pitfall of a DMPC is asking other people on the internet how to use them well, as demonstrated here. It always ends up in a heated arguement about semantics and tautologies, where the anecdotes fly thick and fast.

I know you're a moderator, but regardless, that isn't contributing to the conversation at all. I'm sorry the discussion seems to be breaking the rules. Feel free to close it at your discretion.

[Eisenheim]

So, I'm playing a fate game that often has us accompanied by multiple NPCs of roughly the PCs power level, generally because we choose to bring these people with us, and it works incredibly well with one simple rule: friendly NPCs don't take independent actions in conflict. They can assist the PCs, or a PC can give up their action to instead act via the NPC and use their stats, etc., but they don't take any spotlight when the mechanical stuff happens.

I love it, and I feel like it ought to be transferable to other games.

[busterswd]

I play in a group that DMPCs fairly frequently (we rotate through systems and DMs), and generally, they're inobtrusive and actually fun. Sometimes, the DM wants his (ongoing) character to be part of the story.

Problems that come up:

You don't want a DMPC party face. Same person talking to themself is amusing for a couple conversations, but it gets awkward real fast.

Bookkeeping/game running is even harder. The rest of the group contributes to keep the workload down (somebody runs initiative/calls out turns, for example).

Seperating metagame knowledge. A DMPC cannot be the person who knows things. The player can have the *character* suggest what the character would want to do, but having the character realize a plot essential detail is a gray area. Even if the character is capable of realizing it, the DM generally will want the players to figure out the puzzle he set up, and on the other end, it's easy to assume your character would know something because the answer is obvious, if you made the puzzle. So basically, they cannot contribute in that regard.

You don't want a character arc/storyline whose focus is the DMPC. In general, if somebody doesn't know how to avoid hogging "screentime", you don't want them to run a DMPC.


I know you're a moderator, but regardless, that isn't contributing to the conversation at all. I'm sorry the discussion seems to be breaking the rules. Feel free to close it at your discretion.

Jeez, that's kind of a hostile response. He's not moderating unless he's using the red text, so relax.

[DragonSorcererX]

Props to you for running a 1 on 1 game! Bard is definitely a good fit for any kind of support role.

It's not an option, he is the only friend... oh, well, I have a bunch of other friends who say they want to play, but, it is not that I am lazy (not in this case), it is that I am too anxious, I don't have much self-confidence (even though my only player really likes my dming), and there are the suicidal thoughts who make me think that every day is my last day (and not in the good motivational sense)... :smallfrown:

[Maxilian]

The second sentence here seems like a religious and semantic argument. Religious in that it sounds like doctrine ("thou shalt not use a DMPC"); semantic in that, we're probably still talking about the same thing if we call it an NPC or a DMPC.

That said, what do you mean about plot immunities? I agree with the narrative focus bit though. An NPC shouldn't really have a storyline more prominent than the PCs, like cutscenes that involve only that NPC.

IMO, sometimes you should take the DMPC out of combat rather quickly -- have them go elsewhere and just then start combat. It creates an air of suspicion around the DMPC too, because why is this guy never around when we fight?

How did you balance the player who liked having an NPC around and the player who hated it?

Its not semantic, DMPC arecharacters that are created as if they were PC (PHB and other books help), NPC are just character with statblocks as done in the DMG or MM.

[LaserFace]

So, in the campaign I'm running, I'll have plenty of powerful NPCs travel with a party, although I typically separate their actions from those of the actual players. ie if there's a mass combat, the party will have a group to fight, and these helper NPCs may be fighting another hostile group simultaneously, because I don't want to run full combats with 12 heroes and god knows how many monsters.

These NPCs do typically have stats available, which I can use if somebody is absent or if we have a guest player or something, or there's in fact a special combat where I have a NPC directly contribute to the party. Some of them are very detailed, even possessing class levels at comparable levels to the party and a bunch of skill proficiencies.

Are those DMPCs? I genuinely don't know by OP's definition. They could literally be the characters somebody plays, and I'm actually prepared to let people play them. But, they're not the drivers of the game and they're not who I design my encounters for. I personally call them NPCs because they're there to serve my players. They don't get special attention (beyond how it impacts my players, ie by putting one of them in peril), they don't get a level progression (in fact I subtly change their attributes and junk all the time), and even if they have their own dreams and goals, the game goes on with or without them. Even if one or two of them somehow manages to leave an impression on my players, they aren't important.

The only way I know to describe a DMPC is an actual PC that a DM runs equally alongside the group, gets a share of all the treasure and shares all the experience and other rewards. Whatever the reason for doing this, whether it be due to a Rotating-DM situation that would otherwise cause a PC to vanish in ways that can't be reconciled, or just "wanting to get in on the fun too", I can only see use of a DMPC as a temporary thing because the DM can't actually be a proper player in their own campaign. A DM shouldn't be making story elements and combats and skill challenges for the purposes of challenging themselves in ways they already know how to succeed. If a DM wants to have all the fun of being a player, they should be a player. In my experience, a DM needs to have a desire to run a game for other people or they won't be very successful at all.

If you absolutely must run a DMPC, I think they must be combat and skill machines that the other players give input to. They can behave sensibly, but they should never solve thinking problems intended for the players. They can still be important to the party's goals, but they should never carry the weight of the campaign and absolutely be allowed to die.

In a sense I think a PC that belongs to the DM should just become a NPC. Maybe you track their level progress and whatever but if you have the character act as more than a helper you're just masturbating and asking your players to spectate because you've "got a story to tell".

[Zanthy1]

I usually will just use a NPC, but the times when I've made it a DMPC (Thin line for sure) was a healbot. If he had spells he could heal something, or hit it with his mace. That was it.

[Cybren]

Its not semantic, DMPC arecharacters that are created as if they were PC (PHB and other books help), NPC are just character with statblocks as done in the DMG or MM.

This is not necessarily true. DMPCs can have a monsters statblock (hell, a PC could have a monsters stat block), just as NPCs could be built like a PC

[Citan]

You're free to disagree, but that doesn't change that the average player doesn't like DMPCs, even if you, as a DM, think you totally figured it out no really mine are good.
I absolutely don't think that (especially since I didn't have yet any reason to include a DMPC in my game, so I have yet to include one and make my first mistales :smalltongue:).
But I've been a player in games with DMPC and there were always a blast.
Simply because DM knew why these characters were there for and didn't make its grow on them up to the point of actually being a player in their own game.
Otherwise said, they always kept the mantra "let's all have fun, let player lead the game and shine" in their head (= they were good DMs).



The only way I know to describe a DMPC is an actual PC that a DM runs equally alongside the group, gets a share of all the treasure and shares all the experience and other rewards. Whatever the reason for doing this, whether it be due to a Rotating-DM situation that would otherwise cause a PC to vanish in ways that can't be reconciled, or just "wanting to get in on the fun too", I can only see use of a DMPC as a temporary thing because the DM can't actually be a proper player in their own campaign. A DM shouldn't be making story elements and combats and skill challenges for the purposes of challenging themselves in ways they already know how to succeed. If a DM wants to have all the fun of being a player, they should be a player. In my experience, a DM needs to have a desire to run a game for other people or they won't be very successful at all.

I think this is a very sound and wise piece of thinking, so I quote it for added visibility.

With an emphasis on what seems to me the most important bit.
Thanks for that. :)

[Ziegander]

Maybe this type of anecdote has already been shared, I haven't read the entire thread.

I've had a DMPC in probably over half of all campaigns I've DM'd. If a player has ever had a problem with it, they've never mentioned it. I just make a character and play it as if I was a player in some other DM's campaign.

Is it that hard to make a character that has as little to do with the plot as any other PC and still role play it with character and contribute normally to combat? I roll randomly for treasure and we always role play out who gets what based on what makes the most sense. I don't use inside information to act against monsters, instead I role play my character based on what info they would know (no different than another player who is familiar with statblocks).