What exactly is a "DMPC"?

[Thrudd]

Is it a question of degrees of help? If I, as DM, intentionally provided the party with a Flaming Sword, a Scroll of Mass Resist Cold, a Wand of Scorching Ray during their adventure leading up to conflict with a White Dragon did I rob them of an important aspect of game play? That's totally baked into the system and heck, it's practically expected.

How is that more inappropriate than providing them the opportunity for a tag-along ranger that leads them through the forest, or a tag-along good-aligned cleric that wants to help banish the blight of the dragon that keeps killing the local livestock?

Either way it seems I helped them an awful lot.

- M

Now consider that I didn't say anything about how long the character had been around. The ranger and cleric could just be one-offs motivated by the desire for treasure or the desire to do good, exactly as the PCs...they behave as an actual person in the world. They could be DMPCs that share motivation with the party. Does it matter in terms of "robbing" the players? Does the degree of agency the character expresses impact the issue?

No, it obviously is not the same thing. Players seeking out a tool or ally to help them accomplish their goals is a part of their own problem solving strategy. Being awarded items and treasure through successful adventures is a core mechanic of the game. The DM planting solutions to different problems (which the players need to obtain through game play) in the form of special items and allies, like a fire weapon to combat the ice dragon or a specific ranger that knows the secret path, are legit game design. By helping them solve problems, I mean the DM would be participating in the party's decision making process and interfering in their interaction with the world. Even a permanent NPC member of the party can be played in an appropriate way that does not interfere with the game. But, for this to work there will potentially need to be a sacrifice of verisimilitude/characterization (like the NPC never getting involved in debates with other NPCs, or having an opinion about where to go or what to do). It's best to give control of the NPC over to the players during combat, and only take over if they are proposing something wildly inappropriate or out of character (or a failed morale roll).

It is not a function of the length of time that the NPC is present, it is the manner in which the DM uses it. It is a question of method and intent. Yes, the DM who is always fudging die rolls, helping the players with unearned items and spells, or who otherwise hands the players unearned victories with no effort or thought is doing something similarly inappropriate to using a "DMPC" that helps with battle tactics, has powers greater than that of the party, saves the characters from their mistakes, or serves as a railroad engineer.

The DM creates a world - the world of course has things in it the players/characters want and that will help them as well as dangers/challenges. The dangers are in the way of getting what they want. The game play involves overcoming dangers and problem solving to get the stuff you want. Finding a thing that helps you solve other problems is a common goal. The DM is unbiased regarding how the players proceed and whether or not they succeed. There is a magic sword out there. They can go look for it, and if they find it, then they have a tool that helps them. There is a sage that knows some stuff, they can go look for him. You don't foist a sage on them from the beginning and permanently who is always giving them hints on where to go and what everything means.

[Dragonexx]

Yeah but then there tends to be a player revolt, also they can't justify it with 'PvP' it's a DMPC. Or I play something neutral that just happens to treat DMPCs in the same way. If a DM brings a DMPC to the table, it dies, it dies without mercy or hesitation. Also the local players here would call 'bull**** on the latter, guy would never get a game from any of the local societies again.

Seems like the problem is you really, if you're going to go out of you way to be a disruptive ******* the moment something looks like you won't like it.


Also to address some otherarguements, there's no reason why DMPC's have to know more about the world than the PC's. There's a thing called keeping in-character knowledge and OoC knowledge separate. If you think that's impossible, then what about players who have done the module before, or have read the monster manual, or are just veterans and know how the setting works.

[ErebusVonMori]

Seems like the problem is you really, if you're going to go out of you way to be a disruptive ******* the moment something looks like you won't like it.

Wow. And once again cause and effect are ignored completely *slow clap* I do it because I had to deal with several god-awful DMPCs (as in not only overrules decision making by the party but can solo the party in a fight and threatens them thus, whilst taking the lion's share of the loot) and just outright refuse to go through a game that awful again, also my local area has enough DMs the players will, as a general rule, walk if there's too much nonsense, turns out Rule 0 really reads "We the players are here to have fun, not facilitate your ego-trip."

[Dragonexx]

So you arguement is against bad DM's, not DMPC's in particular.

[ImNotTrevor]

Also to address some otherarguements, there's no reason why DMPC's have to know more about the world than the PC's. There's a thing called keeping in-character knowledge and OoC knowledge separate. If you think that's impossible, then what about players who have done the module before, or have read the monster manual, or are just veterans and know how the setting works.

Knowing how the setting works is expected of the characters, when you think about it. Playing as if your character knows nothing about the place where they have spent their whole lives is decidedly weirder.

And no, people are not capable of perfectly compartmentalizing their various knowledges. The problem is not that the DMPC themselves know everything. It's that they are played by someone who is also currently looking at the GM notes. If there was a player holding the GMs notebook and flipping through it while they played, people would probably raise a few eyebrows. But hand the GM a character sheet and suddenly this is somehow entirely different. When in fact it's the same thing.

[Thrudd]

So you arguement is against bad DM's, not DMPC's in particular.

Using a "DMPC" is a warning sign of a bad DM (though it might not always be bad, because maybe they are just using that term without really thinking about it or knowing what it implies). A DM can't be a player at the same time they are serving as the DM. A co-DM's PC from previous sessions becomes an NPC, or does not appear while they are DMing. An NPC with the party is still an NPC, and that NPC should be played by the DM with appropriate restraint or controlled by a player when possible. It in no way can be played in a way similar to how the players interact with their own characters - not without stepping over into "bad DM" territory or being just plain weird/pointless (talking to yourself in NPC to NPC dialogue, fighting both sides of battles and pretending to explore a place you yourself designed).

[Dragonexx]

Not seeing why that's inherently a problem. Different people have different play experiences.


Knowing how the setting works is expected of the characters, when you think about it. Playing as if your character knows nothing about the place where they have spent their whole lives is decidedly weirder.

I should have clarified that I was referring to knowing secret things about the setting that the characters wouldn't know.

[pres_man]

I do find it fascinating that some folks are describing running their games where the NPCs are basically the equivalent of the Borg. One single mind, shared among them. There are no NPCs that oppose each other or would debate each other. It does create a situation of course where you couldn't really rescue any NPCs as the other NPCs "threatening" them are actually on the same team. Like I said, it is a pretty fascinating approach to gaming. Not really my personal taste, but to each his own I guess.

[ErebusVonMori]

My argument is that DMPCs are usually used as a method of heavy handed railroading and as a means to control the party more directly.

[Max_Killjoy]

Wow. And once again cause and effect are ignored completely *slow clap* I do it because I had to deal with several god-awful DMPCs (as in not only overrules decision making by the party but can solo the party in a fight and threatens them thus, whilst taking the lion's share of the loot) and just outright refuse to go through a game that awful again, also my local area has enough DMs the players will, as a general rule, walk if there's too much nonsense, turns out Rule 0 really reads "We the players are here to have fun, not facilitate your ego-trip."




My argument is that DMPCs are usually used as a method of heavy handed railroading and as a means to control the party more directly.


I think we get that, but it comes across like you're so determined to not see that happen again that you're willing to destroy campaigns and blackball GMs at the first hint that there might be a GMPC happening. To prevent a kitchen fire, you'll burn down an entire house preemptively.




I do find it fascinating that some folks are describing running their games where the NPCs are basically the equivalent of the Borg. One single mind, shared among them. There are no NPCs that oppose each other or would debate each other. It does create a situation of course where you couldn't really rescue any NPCs as the other NPCs "threatening" them are actually on the same team. Like I said, it is a pretty fascinating approach to gaming. Not really my personal taste, but to each his own I guess.


Is this reaction based on the statements some have made that the GM must play an inherently oppositional role across the board, or the statements that GMPCs represent an inherent conflict of interest, or something else?

[Koo Rehtorb]

I do find it fascinating that some folks are describing running their games where the NPCs are basically the equivalent of the Borg. One single mind, shared among them. There are no NPCs that oppose each other or would debate each other. It does create a situation of course where you couldn't really rescue any NPCs as the other NPCs "threatening" them are actually on the same team. Like I said, it is a pretty fascinating approach to gaming. Not really my personal taste, but to each his own I guess.

No one has described this.

[Max_Killjoy]

No one has described this.

I think I can see where it might be coming from, though, which is why I asked for follow-up before I responded.

[Thrudd]

I do find it fascinating that some folks are describing running their games where the NPCs are basically the equivalent of the Borg. One single mind, shared among them. There are no NPCs that oppose each other or would debate each other. It does create a situation of course where you couldn't really rescue any NPCs as the other NPCs "threatening" them are actually on the same team. Like I said, it is a pretty fascinating approach to gaming. Not really my personal taste, but to each his own I guess.

That's silly hyperbole. No, it's not that there are no NPCs that would debate each other. It's that it is a bad thing to include in a game - NPCs debate each other constantly, I'm sure - but mostly "off screen" and in the DM's head. Otherwise it's the DM putting on a one-man show for a captive audience. The occasional, very brief occasion where an NPC needs to talk to another NPC in front of the PCs is a thing that will inevitably happen. A permanent NPC member of the party will have far more occasion to do that than would be ideal, and therefore verisimilitude takes a hit, or else you contrive a reason why they can't participate such as they are subservient and know not to "speak out of turn" . Or, you choose not to have permanent NPC party members.
This is about what makes the game a game for the players.

[Aliquid]

Every time I play, there is one player who does most of the talking and one player who virtually never talks (other than saying what their character does in combat etc). The other players are somewhere in between. This would tie into how much their corresponding PCs talk in game.

As such I have no difficulty imagining an NPC hanging with the party but not participating in conversations with other NPCs. It isn't a stretch at all.

[Talakeal]

I do find it fascinating that some folks are describing running their games where the NPCs are basically the equivalent of the Borg. One single mind, shared among them. There are no NPCs that oppose each other or would debate each other. It does create a situation of course where you couldn't really rescue any NPCs as the other NPCs "threatening" them are actually on the same team. Like I said, it is a pretty fascinating approach to gaming. Not really my personal taste, but to each his own I guess.

While this is obvious hyperbole, I do my best to ensure that the players get to control one side in a conflict. I don't roll out fights between NPCs on screen or act out dialogues between NPCs because the players quickly get bored watching me talk / play with myself. I try not to set up three way conflicts, and when there are friendly NPCs helping the players in battle I leave control of them up to the players.

[Thrudd]

Every time I play, there is one player who does most of the talking and one player who virtually never talks (other than saying what their character does in combat etc). The other players are somewhere in between. This would tie into how much their corresponding PCs talk in game.

As such I have no difficulty imagining an NPC hanging with the party but not participating in conversations with other NPCs. It isn't a stretch at all.

Right, so that is an example of how the DM self-imposes restrictions on how the NPC is played, in order to accommodate good game play for the players. It may have the end-appearance of a PC that is played by a player who just doesn't like to talk, but it is not the same thing. A player could start being more social any time they wanted. The DM can't (or shouldn't). The NPC, therefore, is not treated by the DM in the same way as players in general treat their characters, they don't have the same options and strategies and involvement.

An example of companion/accompanying NPCs done responsibly would be found in the first episodes of Critical Role (at least as far as I've seen). There is an outcast mind flayer that the party ends up in a tenuous alliance with, and also a Halfling paladin that they were sent to find/rescue from the underdark, that both accompany the party through several encounters. In fights, although the DM controls the NPCs, they don't play a prominent role -perhaps making one or two attacks. They don't speak on behalf of the party, you barely remember they are there most of the time while the players are discussing things and making plans. They don't have conversations with each other. The DM has them react in sensible ways to things and answer questions, but never give away anything nor direct the players nor make consequential decisions. And they are not permanent party members, but have both left by the end of the adventure.

[Max_Killjoy]

I guess I didn't realize this was a strange thing until I read this thread... but there have been times when my players WANTED to see one of the NPCs throw down and kick some butt.

[Dragonexx]

It really isn't. It just depends on your playgroup and style.

[Thrudd]

I guess I didn't realize this was a strange thing until I read this thread... but there have been times when my players WANTED to see one of the NPCs throw down and kick some butt.

Of course they want that. They also don't mind being saved from danger and having help winning the fight that might have been difficult otherwise. And that's not terrible on rare occasion, or for some kind of cinematic/narrative purpose to establish who the character is. But let it happen too often, and you get coddled, entitled players who start expecting not to have to actually accomplish anything for themselves. Best to hand the NPC over to the players to control, so they can use the kick-butt abilities for themselves, and also avoid directly helping them tactically when you are their sole opponent. In the case where the very presence of a character with those abilities makes encounters too easy for the players, then perhaps the presence of the character should be reconsidered.

[FabulousFizban]

A DMPC is a hint to the players that someone else should DM for a few sessions because the current DM would really like to play for a bit please & thank you.