PDA

View Full Version : What exactly is a "DMPC"?



Pages : [1] 2

Douche
2017-06-08, 10:33 AM
Judging from forum posts, reddit, etc.... A DMPC is the worst horror story that could possibly happen to you in TTRPGs.

My question is; what exactly constitutes as a DMPC? Is it just the DM playing with himself? Cuz I've had DMs who created a PC when we had a small party (3 people in the party, he added a paladin that he played to bulk up the party a bit, got rid of him once we had 5 members)... But the DMPC never even spoke unless we addressed him first. He was basically just a tagalong.

I just have trouble comprehending what's so bad about that. Every time someone mentions the DM adding someone to help the party, all the responses are "DON'T DO IT! IT'S GOING TO RUIN YOUR LIFE"... Are these DMPCs supposedly moving the whole story forth on their own? They just have their PC solve all the problems & stuff? I just imagine that would be incredibly awkward, seeing the DM have a conversation with himself

kyoryu
2017-06-08, 10:38 AM
It's basically a PC run by the DM.

A character that tags along with the party isn't inherently a DMPC. If it's treated in all ways as a PC (loot shares, experience game, etc.), then it's probably a DMPC.

So, to put it another way - if you wrote out your campaign as a script or something, you'd probably be able to figure out who the PCs are and who the NPCs are. If the DM is running one of those PCs, that's a DMPC.

denthor
2017-06-08, 10:39 AM
A NPC run by the DM that clearly the favorite character in the party. They normally come with the ability to mentally communicate with the DM for optimal results in any situation. Know it all always right spell,magic item or plan for every situation.

Morty
2017-06-08, 10:41 AM
A character that acts like a part of the players' group, but is controlled by the DM. Somewhere along the way, it transformed into a boogeyman and a symbol of the worst DMing practices.

ArcanaGuy
2017-06-08, 10:53 AM
You have the right of it. DMPCs can be done right, but often are not. My group rotates DMing in the same world and party, so whenever we are DMing, our PC becomes a DMPC.

JNAProductions
2017-06-08, 11:02 AM
A PC that's controlled by the DM, as opposed to an NPC that's simply tagging along with the party.

It's not INHERENTLY bad, but it's oftentimes done very poorly.

Douche
2017-06-08, 11:06 AM
It's basically a PC run by the DM.

A character that tags along with the party isn't inherently a DMPC. If it's treated in all ways as a PC (loot shares, experience game, etc.), then it's probably a DMPC.

So, to put it another way - if you wrote out your campaign as a script or something, you'd probably be able to figure out who the PCs are and who the NPCs are. If the DM is running one of those PCs, that's a DMPC.

But what if the player wants to outfit the DMPC with better gear?

It would be douchey for the DM to only give magic items that would benefit his PC, but what if the players want to go buy him a suit of +1 Plate Mail or something?

Tanarii
2017-06-08, 11:09 AM
Cuz I've had DMs who created a PC when we had a small party (3 people in the party, he added a paladin that he played to bulk up the party a bit, got rid of him once we had 5 members)... But the DMPC never even spoke unless we addressed him first. He was basically just a tagalong.It doesn't sound like this DMPC was a problem, but I'm curious why this character wasn't just a Henchmen (or two) instead?

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-08, 11:18 AM
The problem of the DMPC is not in what it IS. There are, in theory, ways to do it right. There is even a game that says there must be a DMPC. (Ryuutama, specifically, though that DMPC is a very different kind of thing.)

A DMPC is most defined by presenting a conflict of interest. When a GM is trying to both be a GM and be a player in their own game in the same way the players are, that's a problem. You now have someone who is supposed to be providing threats, challening you, and making your life harder on your team and trying to survive the same challenges! The guy who is giving out loot suddenly wants part of the loot! The guy who calculates XP is dishing out XP to himself!

It's a massive conflict of interest to be both Player and GM at once. You can't wear both of those mantles at the same time and have good things come of it.

So you know you have a DMPC when the GM is trying to sit on both sides of the GM screen. That's what causes the problem.

Jama7301
2017-06-08, 11:41 AM
I'm thinking most of the bad news in relations to DMPCs comes when they either A) Totally outshine a/some member(s) of the party in their fields or B) Take the spotlight for themselves.

Those are the only two times the DMPC bothers me, really. If nobody in the party is a rogue, and we're going into a secure location, it helps to have a helper on hand. DMPCs are typically more fleshed out as characters compared to a rogue henchman anyways. They aren't treated like items that you can go "Use Rogue on Lock".

Chijinda
2017-06-08, 11:43 AM
A DMPC is, as everyone above me has mentioned, a character the DM is playing that is, for all intents and purposes, another PC. Any rules that benefit the PC's benefit this character, they may attempt to scrounge their kind of the loot-- it really is, basically an NPC that the DM has alloted special "PC" privileges to.

For what it's worth, my own DM has played a DMPC that was pretty well balanced, and never felt like they were being overtly favored. He always had the character sheet in front of us, always rolled in the open for us to see, and hell, he even built the character on the sheet while I was standing next to him, so I knew there were no stat inflations or anything of the sort. Nor did his character ever give the indication that she had some special knowledge none of the rest of us would have (exceptions being for events that only she was there for within the context of the campaign itself).

But it's also worth noting that this isn't a guarantee, and the DMPC has a LOT of advantages, solely by virtue of being controlled by the guy running the campaign. The DM knows where every trap is, knows just what you need to say to any given NPC to get them to help you out, he knows any special abilities that monsters might have that would catch you by surprise, and so it can be VERY easy for the DM to abuse this meta knowledge to his character's advantage. And occasionally they can make it very blatant, and end up with DMPC's being the spotlight stealing squad more often than not.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-06-08, 12:09 PM
The job of the players is to try to achieve their character's goals. The job of the GM is to put obstacles between the characters and their goals. So in essence if there's a GMPC in the game then the person in charge of presenting obstacles ALSO has a personal stake in overcoming those obstacles. Which is an inherent conflict of interest.

ellindsey
2017-06-08, 12:27 PM
The players in the game I run forced me to have a GMPC. I had a very bare bones first level fighter join the group for their first adventure, as I was still showing them how to play at the time (none of the players at the start had any D&D experience). At the end of that session, they insisted that the NPC accompany him on their adventures, and have strongly resisted any attempt on my part to remove the GMPC from the party since then. I have had to try very hard to keep him from being in any way more important to the plot or more effective in combat than the other PCs, while also keeping him from being a useless load or detrimental to the party.

Red Fel
2017-06-08, 12:29 PM
As others have said, it's a conflict of interest. Moreover, it's one with no easy solution. Here's an extreme example.

Dan is the DM. He generates a Wizard who can play in the party alongside his players. The party comes to an obstacle. There are two possible outcomes:
Dan's Wizard has a spell that obviates the obstacle. Wizards tend to do this, so it should be no surprise. But whether it was deliberate or incidental, Dan (the player) just completely undid the work of Dan (the DM), without needing any input from the party. The party is frustrated that the incident basically exists to highlight how awesome Dan's Wizard is.
Dan's Wizard does not have a spell that obviates the obstacle. This shouldn't be a surprise; Wizards have to memorize spells, Dan's Wizard couldn't have known what spells he'd need that day. But Dan (the DM) knew. And now the players are angry, because Dan's Wizard could have resolved the situation, but instead just stands there in that stupid robe and hat while the rest of them figure something out.
It's a Dan if you do, Dan if you don't scenario. If you pick the PC's spells deliberately, you're either choosing ones that will resolve encounters or choosing ones that won't. If you pick them randomly, you may end up being completely useless. And if Dan then chucks his Wizard and rolls a Fighter, the party will be annoyed that they lost their Wizard.

Now, that's an extreme example. Many groups are more trusting, more tolerant. Some tables have an understanding. And some DMs are legitimately able to make a DMPC work right. But where that trust is missing, where that understanding is absent, a DMPC creates a massive opportunity for resentment with no way to fix the problem.

The difference between an NPC and a DMPC isn't always apparent. But where an NPC adventurers with the party, levels with the party, gets a share of the loot, and helps the party overcome obstacles, that's a DMPC. And that's where the risk of problems begins.

kyoryu
2017-06-08, 01:27 PM
But what if the player wants to outfit the DMPC with better gear?

It would be douchey for the DM to only give magic items that would benefit his PC, but what if the players want to go buy him a suit of +1 Plate Mail or something?

Not really sure how that interacts with the definition.

DMPCs aren't necessarily bad. They have inherent problems, as described quite well by Red Fel, below. That's not the only problem, of course, but it's indicative of the class of conflict. To put it a different way, a DMPC will never accidentally step on a trap.

And that's not getting into the power issues that can result, the railroading potential (deliberate or not), or the other ways it can go wrong.

But a DMPC is not necessarily bad. We can define a DMPC in a way that doesn't require problems, I think, and talk about the problems that frequently occur separately.

BRC
2017-06-08, 01:39 PM
I think of it like this

Any game has a given amount of "Focus" Distributed in some way among the PCs. Focus is basically "How stuff does a player get to do". Focus includes things like dealing with PC backstory, giving loot that helps a given PC, or even just giving them a chance to roll dice and succeed.
Even if a DMPC is a mute fighter who does nothing but roll attacks in combat, he's still taking some Focus away from the rest of the players. Any goblin the fighter kills is a goblin a PC could have killed.

The fact is, the DM doesn't need Focus. The DM is CONSTANTLY doing stuff. So, a DMPC is draining focus away from the rest of the group.

JNAProductions
2017-06-08, 01:41 PM
The major thing with a DMPC is this-does it ENHANCE the experience? Or does it detract from it?

Now, the DM is supposed to have fun too. But if they're the only one having fun, that's no good.

Aliquid
2017-06-08, 02:46 PM
DMPC is a vague term that is defined differently by different people.

I've seen people comment "A DMPC is ok, if they do this, this and that". Then an anti-DMPC person responds "that wouldn't be a DMPC, that would be an NPC"

So, it almost gets pointless for people to debate the subject, if each person has a different definition of what is and what isn't a DMPC. The debate gets as useful as a kid from Manchester arguing with a kid from Houston arguing about the shape of a football.

a_flemish_guy
2017-06-08, 04:32 PM
a DMPC can also be used to sarcasticly name an npc because the DM uses him as if he was his PC

a good example if what a bad DMPC would look like is watching the LOTR rings movie as if it were a game then gandalf would be a one (idea shamelessly stolen from DM of the rings)

"oh no guys, you can't fight this boss, only gandalf has that power"
"gandalf finally defeats saruman in a will battle for the mind of theoden, good job in keeping the guards of him"
"okay, you push back the uruk-hai just in time to see gandalf riding in at the head of a large group of horsemen"
"gandalf has the largest charisma modifier and acces to the charm person spell so he should be the one to try and convince the steward, you guys better wait here untill he gives the signal"

etc

obryn
2017-06-08, 05:15 PM
Inasmuch as there are warning signs of a bad DM or upcoming bad play experience, DMPCs are like tornado sirens.

The DM's job is to run the game, the rules, and the rest of the world outside the party. If the DM is also running a character inside the party, that creates a conflict of interest. In the trap example above, either the DMPC will avoid stepping on traps, or will willfully do it. Either way, it's not a natural outgrowth of gameplay; it's manufactured. It can't be done accidentally.

I can't think of a good justification for a DM running a full PC who is always with the party. If your game requires X players, and you only have X-1, you can either tweak the game to make it work with X-1, or you can switch systems to something that will work out.

Arbane
2017-06-08, 05:17 PM
And, of course, it can be even worse than that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?275152-What-am-I-supposed-to-do)

Aliquid
2017-06-08, 06:27 PM
I can't think of a good justification for a DM running a full PC who is always with the party. If your game requires X players, and you only have X-1, you can either tweak the game to make it work with X-1, or you can switch systems to something that will work out.Switching systems is a pain and takes time to learn, especially for the DM. Tweaking the game also takes time and effort. Sometimes going DMPC is the easiest route when you have limited time.

LibraryOgre
2017-06-08, 06:35 PM
I can't think of a good justification for a DM running a full PC who is always with the party. If your game requires X players, and you only have X-1, you can either tweak the game to make it work with X-1, or you can switch systems to something that will work out.

But I want to play Hackmaster. I like and enjoy Hackmaster. My players all know Hackmaster and won't play anything else. But we need a Cleric, and no one rolled the stats for them.

Enter the Permanent NPC. Now, this permanent NPC might be just a member of the party who doesn't tend to take point, or he might be the star of the show that the rest of you get to attend. Generally, the second is called a DMPC, while the first is less likely to be so.

kyoryu
2017-06-08, 07:09 PM
But I want to play Hackmaster. I like and enjoy Hackmaster. My players all know Hackmaster and won't play anything else. But we need a Cleric, and no one rolled the stats for them.

Enter the Permanent NPC. Now, this permanent NPC might be just a member of the party who doesn't tend to take point, or he might be the star of the show that the rest of you get to attend. Generally, the second is called a DMPC, while the first is less likely to be so.

And I'm arguing that the term "DMPC" should be used in either case, and separated from the negative traits.

bulbaquil
2017-06-08, 07:16 PM
I can't think of a good justification for a DM running a full PC who is always with the party. If your game requires X players, and you only have X-1, you can either tweak the game to make it work with X-1, or you can switch systems to something that will work out.

You can, if the system allows for it and if the DM knows how to tweak the system appropriately to allow for it, tweak the game to make it work with X-1, or you can, if the entire party is okay with it, is willing to potentially learn and play in an unfamiliar system that may focus on different aspects of the game than the original system, and if the adventure in progress (including the PC's characters) can be converted sufficiently faithfully to that system, switch systems to something that will work with X-1.

These conditionals are not always true.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-06-08, 07:29 PM
But I want to play Hackmaster. I like and enjoy Hackmaster. My players all know Hackmaster and won't play anything else. But we need a Cleric, and no one rolled the stats for them.

Let one (or all) of the players run two characters in that case.

Aliquid
2017-06-08, 07:37 PM
Let one (or all) of the players run two characters in that case.And if they don't want to run two? Or maybe this is their first time playing, and running two characters might be too much for them to handle?

Koo Rehtorb
2017-06-08, 07:58 PM
And if they don't want to run two? Or maybe this is their first time playing, and running two characters might be too much for them to handle?

This is requiring an increasingly large list of criteria. But sure, maybe there is a group that has their heart set on one specific game, that will fall apart if a certain character class isn't present, and none of the group want to play that character class. In that particular case I'd say they deserve everything that's coming to them.

Really, though, one of the key differences between an NPC with the party and a DMPC is whose idea it is. If the GM says "I'm making an NPC that will join you" that's a red flag. If the party says "We need X. Let's go to town and hire one." then a lot of the problem goes away. Especially if there is a very clear distinction between hirelings and PCs.

obryn
2017-06-08, 08:11 PM
Switching systems is a pain and takes time to learn, especially for the DM. Tweaking the game also takes time and effort. Sometimes going DMPC is the easiest route when you have limited time.

You can, if the system allows for it and if the DM knows how to tweak the system appropriately to allow for it, tweak the game to make it work with X-1, or you can, if the entire party is okay with it, is willing to potentially learn and play in an unfamiliar system that may focus on different aspects of the game than the original system, and if the adventure in progress (including the PC's characters) can be converted sufficiently faithfully to that system, switch systems to something that will work with X-1.

These conditionals are not always true.

But I want to play Hackmaster. I like and enjoy Hackmaster. My players all know Hackmaster and won't play anything else. But we need a Cleric, and no one rolled the stats for them.

Enter the Permanent NPC. Now, this permanent NPC might be just a member of the party who doesn't tend to take point, or he might be the star of the show that the rest of you get to attend. Generally, the second is called a DMPC, while the first is less likely to be so.
Mark Hall kind of touched on this. None of these situations require a DMPC - that is, a full PC being run by the DM as a player while also running the game.

Tagalong NPCs - particularly those who are clearly subordinate to the party, like a follower, companion, henchman, etc. - are not DMPCs. Keep the players in charge, and only intrude on the NPC's decision making when absolutely necessary.


And I'm arguing that the term "DMPC" should be used in either case, and separated from the negative traits.
Nah. Again, it's a matter of stance. Is the DM acting like a player, generally following advancement, sharing in loot, and making all of an NPC's decisions while they are in the party? DMPC. No? NPC.

For example, in my Zeitgeist game, the players bring along NPCs fairly often. These NPCs have greatly pared down stats, simplified actions, and often don't even need to roll dice. But the players are in charge of them; I rarely intrude. And none of them stick around for more than an Act or two of any given adventure. I would be hard pressed to call any of that a DMPC,

Chijinda
2017-06-08, 08:33 PM
Inasmuch as there are warning signs of a bad DM or upcoming bad play experience, DMPCs are like tornado sirens.

The DM's job is to run the game, the rules, and the rest of the world outside the party. If the DM is also running a character inside the party, that creates a conflict of interest. In the trap example above, either the DMPC will avoid stepping on traps, or will willfully do it. Either way, it's not a natural outgrowth of gameplay; it's manufactured. It can't be done accidentally.

I can't think of a good justification for a DM running a full PC who is always with the party. If your game requires X players, and you only have X-1, you can either tweak the game to make it work with X-1, or you can switch systems to something that will work out.


I personally would argue, for a DMPC to work, the DM has to place a HEAVY emphasis on roleplaying, and to give their character a DEFINED character. Their character CANNOT simply be a common Adventurer with minor quirks. This allows the DMPC to act naturally and in a way that the party can accept them mucking things up, or stealing the spotlight. If the DMPC's character is a bold frontliner, who leaps before they think, then the DM has a legitimate reason for them to spring traps before the rest of the party, or go charging in against something out of their league, and need the party to bail them out. Similarly though, if they dive in in situations where that IS the best option, the party accepts it as part of the character either way, and don't find it particularly obtuse of the DM either way.

Jay R
2017-06-08, 08:41 PM
A DMPC is a PC played by a player who has read all the DM's notes.

That's not the definition, of course, but it is an absolutely unavoidable fact - and the one from which all the problems come.

Do the problems have to occur? No, probably not. Many DMs claim that they can prevent this fact from causing problems. Perhaps they're right, although I have never seen it work that way.

But this one brute fact remains: A DMPC is a PC played by a player who has read all the DM's notes.

VoxRationis
2017-06-08, 09:44 PM
A DMPC is a PC played by a player who has read all the DM's notes.

That's not the definition, of course, but it is an absolutely unavoidable fact - and the one from which all the problems come.

Do the problems have to occur? No, probably not. Many DMs claim that they can prevent this fact from causing problems. Perhaps they're right, although I have never seen it work that way.

But this one brute fact remains: A DMPC is a PC played by a player who has read all the DM's notes.

I'd say much the opposite, in fact! DMPCs are usually considered to be a problem because of DM favoritism, not because the DMPC knows too much. Indeed, that the DM knows what the basic plot of the campaign is is a great boon to the tables I've played at, where a common problem is a lack of clear direction (the game I'm playing in has gone nowhere for the last few sessions, in part because of a lack of clear short-term objectives, and that's a problem we never faced when closely working with integrated party NPCs).

Talakeal
2017-06-08, 10:30 PM
You have the right of it. DMPCs can be done right, but often are not. My group rotates DMing in the same world and party, so whenever we are DMing, our PC becomes a DMPC.

We did that once.

I was a bit of a Monty Haul DM back then, and two of the other players got bored quickly and made new characters constantly.

As a result my PC had more wealth than the rest of the party, and everyone got really fed up with me "abusing my DM powers to bling out my character."

Not fun.

Edgeoftheabbys
2017-06-08, 10:50 PM
To be simple a PC (player charter) contrived by the dungeon master.

Aliquid
2017-06-08, 11:13 PM
This is requiring an increasingly large list of criteria. But sure, maybe there is a group that has their heart set on one specific game, that will fall apart if a certain character class isn't present, and none of the group want to play that character class. In that particular case I'd say they deserve everything that's coming to them. Well that "large list of criteria" was one that I used to come across repeatedly. Back in the day, D&D was the only system I knew of, and finding players was hard. So I was lucky to get two people interested in a game, and usually I was introducing them to the game. I was playing using pre-generated modules, and you wouldn't survive those with a party of only 2 PCs.

Really, though, one of the key differences between an NPC with the party and a DMPC is whose idea it is. If the GM says "I'm making an NPC that will join you" that's a red flag. If the party says "We need X. Let's go to town and hire one." then a lot of the problem goes away. Especially if there is a very clear distinction between hirelings and PCs.I typically introduced DMPCs in those situations the same way you find extra players in your typical CRPG (like Baldur's gate etc). You find someone during adventuring that has a reason to join you in your quest. But just like CRPGs, the players always had the option of basically firing the guy and saying "we should go our separate ways"


Tagalong NPCs - particularly those who are clearly subordinate to the party, like a follower, companion, henchman, etc. - are not DMPCs. Keep the players in charge, and only intrude on the NPC's decision making when absolutely necessary.
...Is the DM acting like a player, generally following advancement, sharing in loot, and making all of an NPC's decisions while they are in the party? DMPC. No? NPC.There is no reason someone in a "companion" role wouldn't advance in skills along with the PCs, share in loot, and make their own decisions.


A DMPC is a PC played by a player who has read all the DM's notes.Every NPC and every antagonist in the game has read all the DM's notes. The DM hears the players talk and plot and plan... therefore all the NPCs and antagonists know that too! A DM already has to be neutral and separate his/her personal knowledge from that of the NPCs in the story. A DM already has to select the spells a enemy wizard has prepared... with full knowledge of the PCs abilities and standard tactics in advance. The DM has to do this without bias, and without deliberately optimizing the wizard accordingly.


I'd say much the opposite, in fact! DMPCs are usually considered to be a problem because of DM favoritism, not because the DMPC knows too much.Exactly.

Any time I have run a DMPC, I typically overcompensated on avoiding favoritism. Kind of like the dad who is a coach and gives his kid an extra hard time, so people can't accuse him of favoritism.

obryn
2017-06-08, 11:16 PM
I personally would argue, for a DMPC to work, the DM has to place a HEAVY emphasis on roleplaying, and to give their character a DEFINED character. Their character CANNOT simply be a common Adventurer with minor quirks. This allows the DMPC to act naturally and in a way that the party can accept them mucking things up, or stealing the spotlight. If the DMPC's character is a bold frontliner, who leaps before they think, then the DM has a legitimate reason for them to spring traps before the rest of the party, or go charging in against something out of their league, and need the party to bail them out. Similarly though, if they dive in in situations where that IS the best option, the party accepts it as part of the character either way, and don't find it particularly obtuse of the DM either way.
No, because this is way too much intrusion on the player/GM distinction. And if a DM is focusing on roleplaying their PC, they aren't focusing on their real job.

The DM can roleplay NPCs, for sure. It's part of their job. Could an NPC temporarily join the party? Sure! But an actual PC? A full participant in the adventures who's going to stick around for the length of the campaign? Considered a full party member by one and all? Come on.

The point of playing an RPG is to find out what happens. If the DM knows the consequences of what his DMPC will be doing, he's not playing to find out what happens. He's stealing that discovery process from his players.

obryn
2017-06-08, 11:23 PM
I typically introduced DMPCs in those situations the same way you find extra players in your typical CRPG (like Baldur's gate etc). You find someone during adventuring that has a reason to join you in your quest. But just like CRPGs, the players always had the option of basically firing the guy and saying "we should go our separate ways"
...
There is no reason someone in a "companion" role wouldn't advance in skills along with the PCs, share in loot, and make their own decisions.
Sure there is. A companion should either be an extension of the players' will, or a temporary tag-along. Such a character doesn't need to advance like a player character does.

There is no reason whatsoever in your example that you couldn't run a game for two players. The game works fine that way.


Every NPC and every antagonist in the game has read all the DM's notes. The DM hears the players talk and plot and plan... therefore all the NPCs and antagonists know that too! A DM already has to be neutral and separate his/her personal knowledge from that of the NPCs in the story. A DM already has to select the spells a enemy wizard has prepared... with full knowledge of the PCs abilities and standard tactics in advance. The DM has to do this without bias, and without deliberately optimizing the wizard accordingly.
The NPCs are part of the story, not separate from it. That's one of the big differences, here. (e: Do you let your players read any adventures or DMing notes you've written down? If not, this is a false equivalency.)

Every minute a DMPC is taking the spotlight from the PCs, you are turning your players into passive observers and robbing them of the process of discovery.

goto124
2017-06-08, 11:44 PM
From all the discussion threads I've seen in this forum about DMPCs, the consensus seems to be "DMs can and sometimes should play helpful NPCs, but never DMPCs".

A helpful NPC (sometimes called a companion or hireling) is there to assist the players, and can be used to e.g. help players get back on track when they're lost, shore up combat abilities, etc. A helpful NPC can grow with the party, or even gain a personality.

A PC, however, is there to discover the DM's world and be a significant character. A PC being played by the DM has nothing to discover, and will steal the spotlight from the actual players. All advantages of a DMPC are already covered by a helpful NPC.

Aliquid
2017-06-09, 12:14 AM
Sure there is. A companion should either be an extension of the players' will, or a temporary tag-along. Such a character doesn't need to advance like a player character does.

There is no reason whatsoever in your example that you couldn't run a game for two players. The game works fine that way.Clearly you never played modules from the 80s, because no... no the game doesn't work fine that way. A thief and a magic user with a combined hit point total of 5 won't last through one session without some muscle to back them up.


The NPCs are part of the story, not separate from it. That's one of the big differences, here. (e: Do you let your players read any adventures or DMing notes you've written down? If not, this is a false equivalency.)

Every minute a DMPC is taking the spotlight from the PCs, you are turning your players into passive observers and robbing them of the process of discovery.The DMPC is part of the story too. They are just another NPC, that happens to be following the PCs around and helping. Not sure where this assumption comes from that the DMPC has to take the spotlight from the PCs... any more than other NPCs.

Aliquid
2017-06-09, 12:21 AM
From all the discussion threads I've seen in this forum about DMPCs, the consensus seems to be "DMs can and sometimes should play helpful NPCs, but never DMPCs".

A helpful NPC (sometimes called a companion or hireling) is there to assist the players, and can be used to e.g. help players get back on track when they're lost, shore up combat abilities, etc. A helpful NPC can grow with the party, or even gain a personality.

A PC, however, is there to discover the DM's world and be a significant character. A PC being played by the DM has nothing to discover, and will steal the spotlight from the actual players. All advantages of a DMPC are already covered by a helpful NPC.And boom, we are back to my original comment.

Having a debate about the merits of a DMPC is about as useful as a kid from Houston arguing with a kid from Manchester about what shape a football is... If we aren't using the same definition of a DMPC, then how can we have a meaningful debate.

What you are calling a helpful NPC, is what I would call a well run DMPC. Otherwise I completely agree with your post.

The problem is, people in this thread seem to be saying that a DM shouldn't be running a character that "grows with the party"... so they don't appear to even like "helpful NPCs"

Chijinda
2017-06-09, 02:06 AM
No, because this is way too much intrusion on the player/GM distinction. And if a DM is focusing on roleplaying their PC, they aren't focusing on their real job.

The DM can roleplay NPCs, for sure. It's part of their job. Could an NPC temporarily join the party? Sure! But an actual PC? A full participant in the adventures who's going to stick around for the length of the campaign? Considered a full party member by one and all? Come on.

The point of playing an RPG is to find out what happens. If the DM knows the consequences of what his DMPC will be doing, he's not playing to find out what happens. He's stealing that discovery process from his players.


I dunno, my GM pulled it off just fine, maintaining a DMPC for the better part of a three year campaign, alongside the campaign. It was never an issue for our group. His character levelled up with us (started at level 1, finished at level 8 with the rest of the party), got gear with us, and was privvy to all the same restrictions as the rest of the party, got screwed over just as hard by the party mistakes, benefitted as much from the party victories, and got bailed out by the party as often as she bailed the party out. I never got the feeling he played favorites with his character, and any and all decisions his character made, made perfect sense for the character he created (a brash, greedy, moneygrubbing zealot, who was half-convinced she was invincible). If that isn't a DMPC, I don't know what else you'd call it.

So to your "come on", I say: "Yeah. He did. And everyone involved seemed to enjoy it, nor did it feel like he was favoring or relentlessly UNfavoring the character at any given point."

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-09, 03:08 AM
Again, DMPC vs. NPC Helper is based on their purpose.

If the DM is trying to play both sides of the GM screen through this character, it's a DMPC and will only end badly. To highlight why this will cause problems, imagine playing chess with someone who, on your turn, goes to your side and tells you what piece to move and where, bearing in mind that he also wants to win. It's like going to a football game where the Ref is also the Quarterback. You don't get to do both.

If the DM is throwing the players another sack of hitpoints with abilities tacked on to help them out, but they have no desire to try and be a player with everyone else, that's an NPC Helper.

The difference in approach should highlight which is the case really rapidly.


This isn't all that difficult.

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-06-09, 03:28 AM
I think one of the reasons DMPC's go bad so often is the reason they're used. A DMPC will often be a babysitter, he's there because the DM doesn't thrust the ability of the group to overcome obstacles or, and this is disastrous, even to make the right decisions. So they get a guide, someone who can help them win fights and give hints at where to go. Often someone higher level than the actual party itself, just to be sure, and to give the character some social dominance over the group. Now all the combat will be designed with the higher level DMPC in mind, meaning the party barely gets to contribute, and all the story will be designed from the starting point that there is a helpful DMPC right there who can tell the party everything they need to know, meaning the party barely gets to interact with the world anymore. They're just along for the ride while the DM plays with themself.
If you really can't come up with an adventure your group could handle and they need more power let them have an extra character, a cohort they control together, or a nice big war horse, or give them gestalted characters to boost their power, or use underleveled threats, anything but a DMPC.

If you want to use a DMPC for any other reason, go right ahead. Just mind all the other tips in this thread.

John Campbell
2017-06-09, 04:32 AM
A DMPC is a character played by the DM as if it were a full PC member of the party.

My basic rule of thumb for distinguishing between a DMPC and an ordinary NPC is:

If there's a character controlled by the DM, and the DM describes their actions in third person, that's an NPC.

If the DM describes their actions in first person, that's a DMPC.

DMPCs don't have to be all Mary Sue where the players are just a captive audience for the DM wanking about how awesome their DMPC is (and ordinary NPCs can be just as bad on that front, if not worse), but there are all kinds of issues involved in running one even if it's not just an ego pump. Basically, if your game consists of anything more than just throwing dice at monsters, you cannot be both the DM and a full player at the same time without spoiling things for the actual players.

One of the regular DMs in my group always ran DMPCs, and was on top of that The Guy Who Always Plays Paladins. Having a paladin run by the DM that we could not get rid of in the party multiplied all the usual issues of having a paladin in the party tenfold. It got to the point that, when we started the last campaign that he ran for us, I told him straight out at the beginning that if he introduced another paladin DMPC, I was going to kill it. I wasn't going to wait for a reason or even an excuse; I was just going to murder it out of hand. And I'm pretty sure at least half of the other players would have backed me up, and the other half at least wouldn't have stopped me.

(The DMPC he actually did introduce was an LG cloistered cleric. I didn't start the game by rolling initiative, but I did manage come up with reasons to kill her three separate times in the course of that campaign. After the second one, we cut up her corpse and burned it. He still brought her back again, only to have me one-shot her with an arrow in the face while she was in the middle of a cutscene monologue.)

obryn
2017-06-09, 08:03 AM
Clearly you never played modules from the 80s, because no... no the game doesn't work fine that way. A thief and a magic user with a combined hit point total of 5 won't last through one session without some muscle to back them up.
On the contrary, that's where I got my start (been playing since '82), and there's entire systems around henchmen and hirelings that exist specifically to inflate group sizes. That's what they are there for.


The DMPC is part of the story too. They are just another NPC, that happens to be following the PCs around and helping. Not sure where this assumption comes from that the DMPC has to take the spotlight from the PCs... any more than other NPCs.
Because it's a PC played by a guy or gal who is adjudicating both the actions and the results of those actions.

LibraryOgre
2017-06-09, 08:29 AM
Mark Hall kind of touched on this. None of these situations require a DMPC - that is, a full PC being run by the DM as a player while also running the game.

Tagalong NPCs - particularly those who are clearly subordinate to the party, like a follower, companion, henchman, etc. - are not DMPCs. Keep the players in charge, and only intrude on the NPC's decision making when absolutely necessary.

And the idea of that heirarchy can be very useful. AD&D used Henchmen to cover this a lot... "I don't want to play a cleric... can I find a cleric henchman who is willing to come along?" The DM makes up an NPC to join the group, and everything is hunky-dory. If the Tagalong can be tied to the group in some way other than money, so much the better. If you have a Paladin in the group, maybe that Tagalong is a cleric of his order. If the mage is ostensibly noble, maybe the thief is his roguish reeve. Maybe the fighter's mage is his family tutor... he stays out of combat because he's old, but he can still sling a spell.

Aliquid
2017-06-09, 08:59 AM
On the contrary, that's where I got my start (been playing since '82), and there's entire systems around henchmen and hirelings that exist specifically to inflate group sizes. That's what they are there for.Not sure how to debate with you, you keep moving the goalposts. You asserted that the game would run fine with two players... by switching your argument to "use henchmen", it looks like you are agreeing with me not disagreeing. So, your comment shouldn't be "on the contrary", it should be "I agree".



Because it's a PC played by a guy or gal who is adjudicating both the actions and the results of those actions.Again, the DM does that for all NPCs... still don't see why a DMPC is magically different.

I totally get that a DMPC could totally suck if the DM favors it and gives it special treatment... or makes it so that the DMPC always saves the day. But that doesn't have to happen. The DMPC can easily be a quiet and submissive character.

obryn
2017-06-09, 09:25 AM
Not sure how to debate with you, you keep moving the goalposts. You asserted that the game would run fine with two players... by switching your argument to "use henchmen", it looks like you are agreeing with me not disagreeing. So, your comment shouldn't be "on the contrary", it should be "I agree".
No - henchmen and hirelings are explicitly not DMPCs. There's no goalpost shifting; you're creating a false equivalency.


Again, the DM does that for all NPCs... still don't see why a DMPC is magically different.

I totally get that a DMPC could totally suck if the DM favors it and gives it special treatment... or makes it so that the DMPC always saves the day. But that doesn't have to happen. The DMPC can easily be a quiet and submissive character.
Because PCs and NPCs are not the same thing, and a DM shouldn't have anywhere near the investment in their NPCs populating the world as the players do in the PCs they are playing and advancing. Nor should they be focused on running characters as complex as a PC while also attempting to run the party's opposition.

pres_man
2017-06-09, 09:34 AM
See the signature below.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-09, 09:43 AM
I've had a problem more than once as a GM -- I'll introduce an NPC with no intent of having them be along for every adventure or always hanging out with the PCs. One or more players will decide that they really like this NPC and/or that the NPC is really useful to the party, so they keep doing their best to get this person to "come along", hang out, whatever. In effect, they become something of a GMPC through the efforts of the players.

In science fiction campaign, one of the PCs was space pilot/navigator who got into a high-stakes frontier race while trying to pay off his debts. His best opponent was a pilot from a fringe government, the Laconian Hegemony (think space empire with a culture based on the myths of Sparta, a touch of eugenic breeding and genetic engineering, etc, so I don't have to take 10 paragraphs explaining it). After the race, the pilot PC made a concerted effort to get to know her, and one thing lead to another, and then they were on the run from rogue alien bots, and she was stuck going along with them because the PC had perfectly leveraged her secret orders to keep her stuck with them.

I had a very hard time balancing the fact that she was member of her government's elite secret service, bred and genetically modified to peak human capability, trained from the age of 5 to be a cold-to-the-core killer, and had a personality that one of the other PCs described as "an ice-cold vibroknife wrapped in dry white toast", with the need to not outshine the PCs. On paper, before I had any idea that one of them would try to make her a friend instead of an ongoing rival, I'd written her up as insanely dangerous, more dangerous than any of the PCs by a stretch it turned out. I kept looking for non-contrived ways to split her off from the party, or resolve the element that was keeping her from leaving the party.

The rest of the PCs (and players) really didn't care for her at all, and really I don't blame them... she was intended to be a rival and foil (rather than an outright antagonist) with a personality to take the piss out of the PCs but enough pragmatism and honor that it wouldn't come to shooting.

....

In a fantasy campaign, the entire party loved a bard NPC, and so they kept trying to drag him along everywhere because he'd been so useful the first time he'd shown up.

Aliquid
2017-06-09, 10:38 AM
No - henchmen and hirelings are explicitly not DMPCs. There's no goalpost shifting; you're creating a false equivalency.The fact that henchmen aren't DMPCs isn't the point.

You were arguing various points. ONE of them was that I could run my games just fine with only two PCs. I said, no I *can't* run my games with two PCs, that would suck with the old school modules. By suddenly talking about henchmen, you were not refuting my point that playing with 2 PCs would suck... you were changing the subject.

The fact that you made a valid point, doesn't change the fact that it wasn't relevant to the point I was asserting.


Because PCs and NPCs are not the same thing, and a DM shouldn't have anywhere near the investment in their NPCs populating the world as the players do in the PCs they are playing and advancing. Nor should they be focused on running characters as complex as a PC while also attempting to run the party's opposition.So... then the DM isn't overly invested in the DMPC... big deal, that's totally possible. An NPC consistently tags along with the PCs, gains XP with them, advances with them, shares the loot... but from the perspective of the DM, the NPC is disposable, and replaceable.

This NPC can have an interesting personality... all good NPCs should, but that doesn't mean that the DM has to be any more invested in it than the other NPCs that the PCs regularly interact with (the local lord, the high priest... etc)

Aliquid
2017-06-09, 10:43 AM
So to your "come on", I say: "Yeah. He did. And everyone involved seemed to enjoy it, nor did it feel like he was favoring or relentlessly UNfavoring the character at any given point."Sorry Chijinda, but according to others in this thread, you must have been delusional, because DMPCs are bad and you were having fun wrong.

Your DM should have made various adjustments to the game to remove the DMPC, even if those adjustments would have reduced your enjoyment of the game. It is a matter of principle. You must conform to their preferred style of playing.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-09, 11:02 AM
Sorry Chijinda, but according to others in this thread, you must have been delusional, because DMPCs are bad and you were having fun wrong.

Your DM should have made various adjustments to the game to remove the DMPC, even if those adjustments would have reduced your enjoyment of the game. It is a matter of principle. You must conform to their preferred style of playing.

No one has made this assertion.

What has been pointed out multiple times is the blatant conflict of interests a DMPC presents, the reason the majority of players are extremely wary of DMPCs, and explanations of where most people draw the line between a helpful NPC and a DMPC.

Take a chill pill, man. At this point you're not arguing the point but attempting to undermine the character and intention of those you disagree with. In short, it's Ad Hominem. You're better than that.

Aliquid
2017-06-09, 11:25 AM
No one has made this assertion. Some have come pretty darned close to it.


What has been pointed out multiple times is the blatant conflict of interests a DMPC presents, the reason the majority of players are extremely wary of DMPCs, and explanations of where most people draw the line between a helpful NPC and a DMPC. Which is fine. I'm ok with those arguments. It isn't you that is getting under my skin.

If I say "A DMPC could be OK under these circumstances....", and someone responds, "that's not a DMPC, that's a helpful NPC". I'm totally cool with that.
If someone responds "hmm, I guess, but I would still be weary that the DM wouldn't be able to maintain those circumstances", I'm totally cool with that too.
Or if they start dissecting each of the circumstances and say "this one ok, but that one no, and here's why"... that's just fine with me, as long as they recognize we are talking opinions, not facts.


Take a chill pill, man. At this point you're not arguing the point but attempting to undermine the character and intention of those you disagree with. In short, it's Ad Hominem. You're better than that.Yes I'm pushing an argument to the point that it is absurd. But I'm doing it to deliberately show how absurd the argument is getting.

I repeatedly see fanatical people on these (and other) boards that seem vehemently insist that a certain way of playing is just wrong... and if others say "I've had fun doing that", they just keep going on and on about how wrong it is, as if they are asserting facts rather than opinions. DMPCs and fumbles are a couple subjects that seem to consistently bring this out in people.

I may have exaggerated, but I stand by my claim. Chijinda literally said "everyone involved seemed to enjoy it", but that doesn't seem to be good enough for some people.

----- edit -----
Note that I don't need a chill pill. I know that tone doesn't come across in text very well. My tone was intended as "roll my eyes sarcasm", not "angry venting"

DigoDragon
2017-06-09, 11:32 AM
To put it a different way, a DMPC will never accidentally step on a trap.

I had witnessed one incident where this did happen by accident--the DM was running a module and failed to notice a note about a specific pit trap in the room we were searching. When he read over the room description again, he realized the DMPC stood where the trap would be. Thus, we all hear *kathunk* and the the DMPC falls into a watery pit. :smallbiggrin:



I personally would argue, for a DMPC to work, the DM has to place a HEAVY emphasis on roleplaying, and to give their character a DEFINED character. Their character CANNOT simply be a common Adventurer with minor quirks. This allows the DMPC to act naturally and in a way that the party can accept them mucking things up, or stealing the spotlight. If the DMPC's character is a bold frontliner, who leaps before they think, then the DM has a legitimate reason for them to spring traps before the rest of the party, or go charging in against something out of their league, and need the party to bail them out. Similarly though, if they dive in in situations where that IS the best option, the party accepts it as part of the character either way, and don't find it particularly obtuse of the DM either way.

A well-defined personality for the DMPC does help with making them successful, yes.

My last DMPC was a soft-spoken elf cleric who preferred to avoid violence when the option was there. If it came to a fight, she'd buff the party and let them do the heavy hitting. In town she was fairly generous to the poor. She always wanted a fair cut of the treasure so she can provide meals and clothing to homeless people. Loved tea, hated orcs, enjoyed resting up in tree branches to think. She also had this general annoyance/grief with the party barbarian who knew that elves had a sixth-sense for finding hidden passages, and would regularly push her to walk right next to walls to help with searches. Secretly she kinda had a little crush on him.

Aliquid
2017-06-09, 11:54 AM
Call it a DMPC, call it a helpful NPC, or a companion, or a henchman... either way I’m fine. Really it is the line that is drawn between “this is ok”, and “this is not ok” that should be discussed.

I would like to assert that people are drawing the line in an unnecessary place.

I don’t think it matters if the Helpful NPC does the following:

Follows the PCs for the entire campaign
Gains XP along with the PCs at the same rate
Shares in the loot
Has a distinct personality


I think the Helpful NPC becomes a problem if the following occurs:

The NPC is more powerful than the PCs
Loot better suits the needs of the NPC than the PCs (e.g. magic items)
Challenges are designed so that only the NPC can save the day
The NPC tries to take any sort of leadership role
The PCs don’t realistically have the option of telling the NPC to go away


I'm genuinely curious... as long as the second list is taken into consideration, what's the big deal about the first one?

obryn
2017-06-09, 12:36 PM
The fact that henchmen aren't DMPCs isn't the point.

You were arguing various points. ONE of them was that I could run my games just fine with only two PCs. I said, no I *can't* run my games with two PCs, that would suck with the old school modules. By suddenly talking about henchmen, you were not refuting my point that playing with 2 PCs would suck... you were changing the subject.

The fact that you made a valid point, doesn't change the fact that it wasn't relevant to the point I was asserting.
No, the fact that henchmen are not DMPCs is key to the subject. You're making two different arguments and asserting they are the same. I'll skip down to your most recent post.


I may have exaggerated, but I stand by my claim. Chijinda literally said "everyone involved seemed to enjoy it", but that doesn't seem to be good enough for some people.
That's because "This happened in a game one time, and we had fun" isn't really an argument.


Call it a DMPC, call it a helpful NPC, or a companion, or a henchman... either way I’m fine. Really it is the line that is drawn between “this is ok”, and “this is not ok” that should be discussed.

I would like to assert that people are drawing the line in an unnecessary place.

I don’t think it matters if the Helpful NPC does the following:

Follows the PCs for the entire campaign
Gains XP along with the PCs at the same rate
Shares in the loot
Has a distinct personality


I think the Helpful NPC becomes a problem if the following occurs:

The NPC is more powerful than the PCs
Loot better suits the needs of the NPC than the PCs (e.g. magic items)
Challenges are designed so that only the NPC can save the day
The NPC tries to take any sort of leadership role
The PCs don’t realistically have the option of telling the NPC to go away


I'm genuinely curious... as long as the second list is taken into consideration, what's the big deal about the first one?
The big deals on the first part are the "entire campaign" bit and sharing in xp/loot, along with following the same rules for the PCs, while being firmly in control of the DM. That's a DMPC, that's not an NPC.

The second list is full of various degenerate game-states that can (and very frequently do) arise. Avoiding them doesn't avoid the key issues, though. The game is about the players' characters, and the consequences of those characters' decisions. The players' job is to play the game and discover. The DM's job is to adjudicate the world around them, and find out what happens when the PCs interact with it. When a DM is running a full PC, they know exactly what the consequences of any non-random event will be. It's like when two NPCs are having a discussion - the players are relegated to observers.

Like I said - do you share your adventure notes with your players? If it's okay for the DMPC's player to have read them, why isn't it okay for the regular PCs' players to have read them?

Now... How do you prevent this from being a problem? Here's my own checklist.
(1) Keep any tagalong NPCs temporary and relevant to the active situation at-hand. If they're investigating a murder, having Investigator Sally along makes sense. If they're slaying a dragon, hiring Joan the Dragon-Slayer makes sense. If they're saving a kingdom, Sir Greg the Knight can help.
(2) Whenever possible, offload management of the NPC to the actual players of the game. They should run the NPC in combat (with the DM keeping veto rights if necessary), and the NPC should mostly speak to their areas of expertise.
(3) The NPCs should generally be the players' idea. Joan the Dragon Slayer might volunteer to come along, but unlike a PC, she wasn't part of the group in the first place.
(4) Keep them simplified with pared-down mechanics. Don't write them up like a full PC; that level of detail is almost definitely unnecessary. This will also serve to limit the DM's investment in their survival and advancement. If you find yourself saying "I can't wait to take X feat next level!" you're in the wrong mindset.
(5) Their power level should be below that of the PCs *and* ideally shoring up weak points in the PCs' capabilities. ("Investigator Sally is along to provide knowledge of the city and contacts.")
(6) Any rewards should be settled upon and appropriate. Joan probably wants her fair share of the dragon's horde and maybe a specific item she knows is there. Sir Greg might be happy just to save the kingdom.


So let me flip this around - why is it important to you that an NPC be a permanent party member, use all the same player-side mechanics like advancement and loot, and be controlled by you while you're also doing the business of running a game?

ArcanaGuy
2017-06-09, 12:41 PM
I had mentioned earlier how my group swaps GM roles, so our PC is always a GMPC when we are also GMing. It has not made problems in itself in part because our main goal is to create fun stories together.

Which isn't to say there has not been problems. When I am GMing, I often forget to take my PC's turn because I am too busy with the npcs. It is a superhero game, and my character is a near normal who just happens to be immortal. Skills and exposition are his two major roles. So whenever I forget he's there in a fight, he shows up afterwards regrowing part of his head or putting an arm back on or some such. But at the same time, heis their go-to guy outside of combat when they need some odd gizmo, or an introduction to a government agency, or passage to Atlantis. It works really well, and they like having him along.

It adds to the game, adds to the story, and is a character that could really only work as a GMPC.

supercooldragn
2017-06-09, 12:45 PM
Call it a DMPC, call it a helpful NPC, or a companion, or a henchman... either way I’m fine. Really it is the line that is drawn between “this is ok”, and “this is not ok” that should be discussed.

I would like to assert that people are drawing the line in an unnecessary place.

I don’t think it matters if the Helpful NPC does the following:

Follows the PCs for the entire campaign
Gains XP along with the PCs at the same rate
Shares in the loot
Has a distinct personality


I think the Helpful NPC becomes a problem if the following occurs:

The NPC is more powerful than the PCs
Loot better suits the needs of the NPC than the PCs (e.g. magic items)
Challenges are designed so that only the NPC can save the day
The NPC tries to take any sort of leadership role
The PCs don’t realistically have the option of telling the NPC to go away


I'm genuinely curious... as long as the second list is taken into consideration, what's the big deal about the first one?

I've only run a DMPC once, in what was supposed to be a campaign where the DM rotated. I think the main issue is that it is, at least in my experience, difficult to separate what you know about how the dungeon is designed etc, from the character. thus even if challenges aren't designed so that only the npc can save the day it's easy to have them point out the secret passage no one else found or know to go find ol' man Smithers who will know why the zombie fish are attacking or whatever. an NPC taking an active role in driving the story, which will almost certainly happen if they are with the party the whole time is effectively taking a chunk of the game out of the players hands unless it is done with an almost impossible amount of skill.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-06-09, 01:08 PM
I'm actually curious about what people think of this. A while ago I was doing a big dungeon. An NPC wizard hired a group of adventurers to go into a dungeon and retrieve an orb for him. In exchange he provided access to the dungeon and promised them the rest of the loot in the place besides the orb. The group he hired were mostly PCs, and also a few NPCs. They were:

A trap expert: Lower level than the party. Someone who could open locks and disarm traps. The PCs did have their own rogue, but the player was kind of unreliable and I didn't want things to grind to a halt if/when he missed sessions. A trapper was basically essential to everyone not dying horribly. The NPC was worse at those skills than the PC was and also useless at everything else. He ended up dying halfway through.

A warrior: Mostly intended for comic relief. Significantly worse at everything than the PCs and an idiot besides. His main use was being a damage sponge. Also ended up dying.

The NPC wizard himself: The most potentially concerning one. He was somewhat more powerful than the PCs, smarter, with more applicable knowledge skills for the esoteric parts of the dungeon. IC he wasn't going to take a chance on his life's work being screwed up by a gang of random adventurers. OOC he was along because the orb itself was going to turn out to be morally dubious and he was a potential end boss for the dungeon if the PCs balked at handing it over as agreed, which is also why he was a little more powerful than the party. I tried to balance him by making him cagey, he contributed basically nothing to combat and preferred to turn invisible and hide and let the PCs handle any danger. He also wasn't an adventurer and had nothing to contribute to the whole dungeon delving aspect. When asked to he would make some knowledge skill checks (at preset DCs) and give the party some information based on the magical aspects of the dungeon. He also provided some critical help without being asked at key junctions, such as opening a deactivated portal when the party was dying in an ambush. The party ended up being leery about handing over the orb when they got it, but ended up doing it anyway based on a combination of him having acted in a trustworthy manner, and not wanting to risk a fight with them. They parted on amicable terms after the dungeon was over.

Aliquid
2017-06-09, 01:38 PM
No, the fact that henchmen are not DMPCs is key to the subject. You're making two different arguments and asserting they are the same. I'll skip down to your most recent post.Sure, it is key to the overall subject, but it isn't key to the specific point under debate. Below we are discussing individual points (with bullets), that makes it clear what is under discussion... but if we respond to one point by asserting a fact that is only relevant to a different point, then the whole discussion becomes a incoherent mess.


That's because "This happened in a game one time, and we had fun" isn't really an argument.It most certainly is. If you claim that DMPCs will ruin a game, and someone says "I had fun playing a game with a DMPC... then that person refuted your claim. Assuming they aren't lying, they have proved that a DMPC doesn't always ruin a game.


The big deals on the first part are the "entire campaign" bit and sharing in xp/loot, along with following the same rules for the PCs, while being firmly in control of the DM. That's a DMPC, that's not an NPC.Yet you fail to say why this matters. You fail to say why sharing loot and XP somehow changes the gaming experience. What if that was the only factor?

What if a DM ran a henchman exactly like your perception of a henchman, EXCEPT that henchman also shared loot and XP. Why does this NPC suddenly become a bad thing?


The second list is full of various degenerate game-states that can (and very frequently do) arise. Avoiding them doesn't avoid the key issues, though. The game is about the players' characters, and the consequences of those characters' decisions. The players' job is to play the game and discover. The DM's job is to adjudicate the world around them, and find out what happens when the PCs interact with it. When a DM is running a full PC, they know exactly what the consequences of any non-random event will be. It's like when two NPCs are having a discussion - the players are relegated to observers.And XP/loot impacts this how? If a NPC shares the XP, suddenly they rob the players from being able to discover?



Now... How do you prevent this from being a problem? Here's my own checklist.
(1) Keep any tagalong NPCs temporary and relevant to the active situation at-hand. If they're investigating a murder, having Investigator Sally along makes sense. If they're slaying a dragon, hiring Joan the Dragon-Slayer makes sense. If they're saving a kingdom, Sir Greg the Knight can help.I don't get why this matters. Is it because if the NPC sticks around longer the DM might get too attached to it?


(2) Whenever possible, offload management of the NPC to the actual players of the game. They should run the NPC in combat (with the DM keeping veto rights if necessary), and the NPC should mostly speak to their areas of expertise.I don't unload things to novice players, they have enough on their hands just keeping on top of their own character sheet. But I'm ok with the PCs barking orders at the NPC during combat.


(3) The NPCs should generally be the players' idea. Joan the Dragon Slayer might volunteer to come along, but unlike a PC, she wasn't part of the group in the first place.Yes, Joan might volunteer to come along, and the PCs can say "no thanks, we got this".


(4) Keep them simplified with pared-down mechanics. Don't write them up like a full PC; that level of detail is almost definitely unnecessary. This will also serve to limit the DM's investment in their survival and advancement. If you find yourself saying "I can't wait to take X feat next level!" you're in the wrong mindset.That's a valid point I hadn't considered yet.

(5) Their power level should be below that of the PCs *and* ideally shoring up weak points in the PCs' capabilities. ("Investigator Sally is along to provide knowledge of the city and contacts.")Absolutely. The party might need a meat shield, or a healer or whatever to help them survive... because that's something they are lacking. The NPC shouldn't take on a role that the PCs already have covered... and should be at least one level lower in power/skill.

(6) Any rewards should be settled upon and appropriate. Joan probably wants her fair share of the dragon's horde and maybe a specific item she knows is there. Sir Greg might be happy just to save the kingdom.Sure, I'm fine with that.



So let me flip this around - why is it important to you that an NPC be a permanent party member, use all the same player-side mechanics like advancement and loot, and be controlled by you while you're also doing the business of running a game?It isn't important. I am in no way attached to DMPCs, or feel the need to run them on a regular basis.

There are situations that come up where running a DMPC (or helpful NPC) is a convenient way of addressing a small playing group. There are plenty of other possible solutions, and I'm not arguing that DMPC (or helpful NPC) is the best solution. I'm just saying it can work if done properly.

obryn
2017-06-09, 02:08 PM
I'm cutting things down because I really hate when message board conversations degenerate into more than a small handful of quote blocks.


...If you claim that DMPCs will ruin a game, and someone says "I had fun playing a game with a DMPC... then that person refuted your claim. Assuming they aren't lying, they have proved that a DMPC doesn't always ruin a game.
It would, if that was my claim. That's a parodied version of my claim.

I am not saying, "It's impossible to have fun with a DMPC in the party." I am saying that it's definitely not best practice, will probably cause more trouble than it's worth, it adds additional overhead to a DM's job, and that it blurs the DM/Player line in ways that are disruptive to the play experience. It also blurs the narrative lines, because a DM cannot operate blind to the consequences of a DMPC's actions. (They can say, "well, my character will do X" but with full awareness of what will happen afterwards. Again, it's giving the players access to your adventure notes.)

A staggering amount of Bad Gaming Stories start by mentioning the DMPC; this is not a coincidence.


Yet you fail to say why this matters. You fail to say why sharing loot and XP somehow changes the gaming experience. What if that was the only factor?

What if a DM ran a henchman exactly like your perception of a henchman, EXCEPT that henchman also shared loot and XP. Why does this NPC suddenly become a bad thing?

And XP/loot impacts this how? If a NPC shares the XP, suddenly they rob the players from being able to discover?
The only reasons for an NPC to share in XP and loot are (1) you plan to advance them and keep them around, or (2) you want to give the party a smaller reward due to the assistance of NPCs. The first is not okay, while the second is "eh, if that's how the game works and you're actually using XP and such." (Fun little note: in AD&D 1e, a henchman takes a full share of XP, but only benefits from half of it.)

I was focused on the first part, not the second, when I said it was a bad idea.


(re: temporary nature) I don't get why this matters. Is it because if the NPC sticks around longer the DM might get too attached to it?
That's part of it. Keeping them temporary also preserves how the game is about the PCs, not the NPCs. It keeps the lines clear, and keeps the game focused. It's the difference between a cast member and a recurring guest star.


It isn't important. I am in no way attached to DMPCs, or feel the need to run them on a regular basis.

There are situations that come up where running a DMPC (or helpful NPC) is a convenient way of addressing a small playing group. There are plenty of other possible solutions, and I'm not arguing that DMPC (or helpful NPC) is the best solution. I'm just saying it can work if done properly.
And I'm saying that "it can work" isn't really a good reason to do so. There are better ways to approach literally every circumstance that you think might require a DMPC that keep the focus on the players, and that don't muddy the DM/player waters.

(Except, of course, for "The DM actually really wants to play their own character but has to DM instead so decides to do both at the same time" which is where a whole lot of the problems start.)

kyoryu
2017-06-09, 03:48 PM
Nah. Again, it's a matter of stance. Is the DM acting like a player, generally following advancement, sharing in loot, and making all of an NPC's decisions while they are in the party? DMPC. No? NPC.

Exactly. That's my argument since like the second post of this.

Some things are generally true of PCs - they are in the "party", they don't get removed fromt he party except in extreme circumstances, they get a full portion of treasure (as appropriate), are usually part of decision-making, use PC rules, etc.

An NPC, run by the DM, that follows these is a DMPC (though, granted, most DMPCs will avoid party decision-making because it's obvious that's a problem).


For example, in my Zeitgeist game, the players bring along NPCs fairly often. These NPCs have greatly pared down stats, simplified actions, and often don't even need to roll dice. But the players are in charge of them; I rarely intrude. And none of them stick around for more than an Act or two of any given adventure. I would be hard pressed to call any of that a DMPC,

An NPC not run by the DM wouldn't be a DMPC. That seems obvious? And if they don't stick around for more than an act or two, well, that separates them from PCs inherently. And they have simplified actions, so they're not using PC rules.

That sounds like they're not DMPCs by *any* stretch of the imagination. They're NPCs.

Jay R
2017-06-09, 03:54 PM
Every NPC and every antagonist in the game has read all the DM's notes. The DM hears the players talk and plot and plan... therefore all the NPCs and antagonists know that too!

Correct. By contrast, a PC is a character run by somebody with only partial information, but who is supposed to identify fully with the PC.


A DM already has to be neutral and separate his/her personal knowledge from that of the NPCs in the story. A DM already has to select the spells a enemy wizard has prepared... with full knowledge of the PCs abilities and standard tactics in advance. The DM has to do this without bias, and without deliberately optimizing the wizard accordingly.

Exactly. And a player is supposed to play the PC with bias, deliberately optimizing the character's approach, based on the incomplete information, because he or she identifies with the PC, who is more "their character" than any other character in the world. A PC is a tool with which the player explores the world, trying to learn more about what's happening through the PC's actions.

Therefore, based on your description above, any character run by the DM is very different from a PC.

obryn
2017-06-09, 04:04 PM
Exactly. That's my argument since like the second post of this.

Some things are generally true of PCs - they are in the "party", they don't get removed fromt he party except in extreme circumstances, they get a full portion of treasure (as appropriate), are usually part of decision-making, use PC rules, etc.

An NPC, run by the DM, that follows these is a DMPC (though, granted, most DMPCs will avoid party decision-making because it's obvious that's a problem).
--
An NPC not run by the DM wouldn't be a DMPC. That seems obvious? And if they don't stick around for more than an act or two, well, that separates them from PCs inherently. And they have simplified actions, so they're not using PC rules.

That sounds like they're not DMPCs by *any* stretch of the imagination. They're NPCs.
I must have misunderstood the thrust of your post. My bad, and I apologize. :smallsmile:

Knaight
2017-06-09, 04:06 PM
A DMPC is a PC played by a player who has read all the DM's notes.

That's not the definition, of course, but it is an absolutely unavoidable fact - and the one from which all the problems come.
This includes the set of notes that are only mental notes, where the player is updated as the notes are.

I also wouldn't agree that this is where all the problems come from. There's also the matter of how running the DMPC takes away from attention that could be paid to the rest of the game and makes it weaker as a result.

pres_man
2017-06-09, 04:09 PM
I have played in games running models that I have played before, but other players have not. Heck, I've played in games where I myself ran the model before.

Somehow, I have been able to compartmentalize this knowledge from what my character knows. Generally, I just ask myself, "What should my character know?" And if there is no reason to know that there is a trap/secret door/whatever up ahead, then the character doesn't know it and thus doesn't act to avoid/find/whatever it.

I have performed a similar calculus when I have run a Party Ally. My default position is that the character doesn't know anything and from there I look at what they should know based on their experiences and knowledge base.

As to knowing the consequence of any choice made by a Party Ally, I would refer you to the quote, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." Likewise, no campaign plan survives contact with the PCs. Even if a DM has every path planned out ahead of time, players are going to throw monkey-wrenches in and foul up the whole plan.

This is why when I don't run an adventure path, I general only plan out a few weeks/months of game play ahead of where the party is. You just don't know what is going to happen, as long as you are allowing player choices to actually have an affect. So if a Party Ally makes a suggestion based on the circumstances of the moment, I don't often know where that will ultimately lead.

As a player, I was never a Blackleaf type player. The lose of a character while it can be disappointing, isn't something I am likely to avoid at all costs, up to and including cheating. I have often pointed out a rule that is actually to my detriment as a player, because playing consistently is more important to me than any character. Likewise, a Party Ally is not going to drive me to taint the game merely to keep the character alive.

Why should a Party Ally be (approximately) equal level? So that it does not act as a burden to the party. Lower level, npc-class, lower stats, often create a character that is more of a drag on the party than a boon. The whole point for the party working with the Party Ally is they gain from the relationship. If they have to constantly protect/heal/whatever the Party Ally, then that positive relationship doesn't exist.

*When ever I say "Party Ally", you can substitute that with "DMPC". I just use this phrase to allow the "anti-DMPC" crowd to partition what I am talking about into the first definition in my sig from the second definition.

Aliquid
2017-06-09, 04:25 PM
A staggering amount of Bad Gaming Stories start by mentioning the DMPC; this is not a coincidence.Correlations does not imply causation. A staggering amount of bad gaming stories also start by mentioning "house rules"... but that doesn't mean that all DMs shouldn't make house rules. It can lead to horrible games, but it doesn't have to.

That's part of it. Keeping them temporary also preserves how the game is about the PCs, not the NPCs. It keeps the lines clear, and keeps the game focused. It's the difference between a cast member and a recurring guest star.Ok, that's a good analogy... But what about if the "helpful NPC that follows throughout the campaign" is thought of more of a sidekick than the hero? They are there to help, but they are not the focus of the story (and not as strong or heroic)

And I'm saying that "it can work" isn't really a good reason to do so. There are better ways to approach literally every circumstance that you think might require a DMPC that keep the focus on the players, and that don't muddy the DM/player waters.It is a good enough reason for me. As long as everyone is having fun, and it is working, I'm not overly concerned if there is a "better way". Sometimes this is the easier, more convenient, or even more entertaining way.




Therefore, based on your description above, any character run by the DM is very different from a PC.I'm not sure what you are trying to convince me of here. If you are arguing that I shouldn't be calling these things DMPCs, because they are so very different from a PC, then... yes, you are swaying my opinion in that direction.

I also agree that a DM shouldn't play an NPC with that frame of mind, if that's the angle you were going for.

Tanarii
2017-06-09, 04:35 PM
Call it a DMPC, call it a helpful NPC, or a companion, or a henchman... either way I’m fine. Really it is the line that is drawn between “this is ok”, and “this is not ok” that should be discussed.There is a world of difference between a DMPC or helpful NPC (both under DM control) vs a companion (class feature under PC control) or Henchman (PC controlled 'NPC', that levels) or Follower (class feature, PC controlled 'NPC', that generally doesn't level.)

(This has no bearing on whether or not you find any and all of these to be fine. That's your personal opinion and I can't comment on that. :smallwink: )


I'm genuinely curious... as long as the second list is taken into consideration, what's the big deal about the first one?Honestly, nothing really.

Some players straight out resent NPCs getting a share of the XP or loot. But as long as the synergy of the extra character allowed them to get a proportionally larger amount of XP/loot than they would have without them, it's actually just a perception issue.

Likewise for Henchmen. For some players, they aren't wanted because they are considered an XP/loot sink detracting from the 'real PC' personal power. That's especially a more common view in editions where they may not stick around for more than a few adventures (Like B/X or BECMI's Retainers). Others are okay with them because they understand that they allow proportionally greater XP/loot, and because they're nominally under player control while they remain with the party. Others are okay as long as they stick around forever, because they are an extension of the 'real PC' personal power in that case.

But as a general rule, I find players can't stand DMPCs and even temporary 'party' NPCs (equal to the party or not), and are okay with Henchmen etc (typically both subservient to the 'real PC' and under player control)

VoxRationis
2017-06-09, 05:32 PM
But as a general rule, I find players can't stand DMPCs and even temporary 'party' NPCs (equal to the party or not), and are okay with Henchmen etc (typically both subservient to the 'real PC' and under player control)

Table differences at work. In general, I find the people I play with are more than happy to have party NPCs, and we usually miss them when they're gone (as with poor Rugard, whose head was taken off by a cannonball). Sure, there's sometimes a little ill will, but as a result of in-character conflicts no different from those between PCs.

Tanarii
2017-06-09, 05:44 PM
Table differences at work. In general, I find the people I play with are more than happy to have party NPCs, and we usually miss them when they're gone (as with poor Rugard, whose head was taken off by a cannonball). Sure, there's sometimes a little ill will, but as a result of in-character conflicts no different from those between PCs.
I'm already taking table differences into account. I'm talking about a general rule across a large variety of tables, over thirty years of experience. That doesn't mean ALL tables. Just more often than not, tables are okay with player controlled NPCs, but not okay with DM controlled NPCs, being an active part of the party.

I'm also going off my own judgement and perception of course. It's not like I've sat down and tallied how many tables have been okay or not okay. :smallwink:

Jay R
2017-06-09, 06:57 PM
I'm not sure what you are trying to convince me of here.

The we're even. I'm not sure what you were trying to convince me of when you compared by description of a DMPC with a NPC


I'm not sure what you are trying to convince me of here. If you are arguing that I shouldn't be calling these things DMPCs, because they are so very different from a PC, then... yes, you are swaying my opinion in that direction.

Close, but not quite. If the DM is identifying with this one NPC like a PC, wanting him or her to get good loot and xps, and judging "success" by how this one character does, then it should be called a DMPC.

As an intellectual exercise, I admit the possibility that a DM could do this without hurting the game; I just haven't seen it.


I also agree that a DM shouldn't play an NPC with that frame of mind, if that's the angle you were going for.

Agreed. If this character is played like any other NPC, and isn't the one character the DM identifies with, then it's just an NPC, which is fine.

All in all, I think we either always had, or have found, agreement. Either way, it's an internet discussion that worked well.

Talakeal
2017-06-09, 07:29 PM
A DMPC can be done well or it can be done poorly. And the game can still be fun even if it is done poorly.

Regardless of the specifics, though, a DMPC requires the DM to:

1: Play both sides at once while still attempting to remain an impartial arbiter and keep PC / DM knowledge separate.
2: Take spotlight time away from the players.
3: Split their attention between being a DM and a player.

This stuff is all hard, and while some DM's might be able to pull it off, their game likely suffers in some way as a result. Its like juggling, playing the kazoo, and tight rope walking all at the same time, you might be able to do it, but probably not as well as you could do either trick by itself.

I personally would say that even henchmen, companions, followers, and hirelings should be controlled by the players rather than the DM for precisely these reasons (unless of course the NPC in question is the one being interacted with).



And, even if the DM is perfect, the players might not be. A lot of players are resentful of DMPCs and see DM favoritism even when it isn't there. And just one player with a suspicious attitude can turn the entire group toxic.






Also, I personally don't see how playing a DMPC can be fulfilling. You can't really explore the world because you already know where everything is. You can't really have long conversation with NPCs because no one wants to sit around and talk to themselves (or worse watch someone else do it.) You can't really enjoy tactical combat because you are playing both sides. You can't really try and min-max a character build because then you will risk overshadowing the PCs, not to mention the issues with loot distribution.

Really, the only DM's who I can see getting a lot out of a DMPC are the types who just like an audience, who want to hear themselves talk, who want to lead the players along a scripted path, and who want everyone to look at them and see how cool they / their character / their adventure is. And these kind of people are typically problem DMs to being with, so even if the DMPC isn't the source of the problem they will still act as a lightning road to focus playing criticisms.

Aliquid
2017-06-09, 08:17 PM
All in all, I think we either always had, or have found, agreement. Either way, it's an internet discussion that worked well.Half the time I wonder if debates are due to a misunderstanding of where the other person is coming from... rather than a genuine disagreement. Especially when we start using terms that are vaguely defined.

Talakeal
2017-06-09, 08:18 PM
Half the time I wonder if debates are due to a misunderstanding of where the other person is coming from... rather than a genuine disagreement. Especially when we start using terms that are vaguely defined.

I would say half the time in an understatement.

Aliquid
2017-06-09, 08:40 PM
Also, I personally don't see how playing a DMPC can be fulfilling.When I run a game, it is fulfilling for me if the players become immersed in the world, the story and their characters. If they start caring about things and get emotionally invested in the game. A "helpful NPC" that constantly tags along like a sidekick can add flavor to the story and the world. The players can become attached to the NPC, or maybe see it as a bit of comic relief. The NPC can chat with the PCs about local culture or customs to add depth to the world. The NPC adds familiarity and consistency to the world as they adventure.

I've had more than one occasion where players get attached to the party's donkey, and get upset if it dies or has to be left behind. I've had players get attached to the cranky merchant that they regularly sell off their loot to. A sidekick or "mascot" type of role is a similar concept that has some consistency as they travel around.

This is only a description of how I would find it fulfilling, I am not in any way saying that others would or should have the same experience.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-09, 08:42 PM
A DMPC can be done well or it can be done poorly. And the game can still be fun even if it is done poorly.

Regardless of the specifics, though, a DMPC requires the DM to:

1: Play both sides at once while still attempting to remain an impartial arbiter and keep PC / DM knowledge separate.
2: Take spotlight time away from the players.
3: Split their attention between being a DM and a player.

This stuff is all hard, and while some DM's might be able to pull it off, their game likely suffers in some way as a result. Its like juggling, playing the kazoo, and tight rope walking all at the same time, you might be able to do it, but probably not as well as you could do either trick by itself.

I personally would say that even henchmen, companions, followers, and hirelings should be controlled by the players rather than the DM for precisely these reasons (unless of course the NPC in question is the one being interacted with).



And, even if the DM is perfect, the players might not be. A lot of players are resentful of DMPCs and see DM favoritism even when it isn't there. And just one player with a suspicious attitude can turn the entire group toxic.






Also, I personally don't see how playing a DMPC can be fulfilling. You can't really explore the world because you already know where everything is. You can't really have long conversation with NPCs because no one wants to sit around and talk to themselves (or worse watch someone else do it.) You can't really enjoy tactical combat because you are playing both sides. You can't really try and min-max a character build because then you will risk overshadowing the PCs, not to mention the issues with loot distribution.

Really, the only DM's who I can see getting a lot out of a DMPC are the types who just like an audience, who want to hear themselves talk, who want to lead the players along a scripted path, and who want everyone to look at them and see how cool they / their character / their adventure is. And these kind of people are typically problem DMs to being with, so even if the DMPC isn't the source of the problem they will still act as a lightning road to focus playing criticisms.

As I noted earlier, my games have a tendency for one or more player to latch onto an NPC and make it a pain for me to keep that NPC at an NPC-appropriate background position.

It's not so much that I set out to have a GMPC, but I also refuse to contrive reasons for NPCs to just disappear, or to have NPCs be weaker than they "realistically" should for who they are, or whatever. I don't want the NPCs to outshine the PCs or make them feel useless, but I also very much dislike the fiction/RPG tradition of the making the PCs feel "bigger" by making the other characters kinda useless.

The Insanity
2017-06-09, 10:45 PM
A staggering amount of Bad Gaming Stories start by mentioning the DMPC; this is not a coincidence.
A staggering amount of Bad Gaming Stories start by mentioning the DM/player.

pres_man
2017-06-10, 12:01 AM
A staggering amount of Bad Gaming Stories start by mentioning the DM/player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU

Dragonexx
2017-06-10, 01:51 AM
I'm going to start with this:


There is seriosly nothing wrong with DMPCs. At its core, it's the DM telling you that the NPC assistant you get is playing by the same rules that the rest of you are. And while the temptation exists to drop artifact swords, high born lovers, and special mecha armor on the DMPC, that temptation exists for NPCs who don't have a character sheet as well.[br][br]Everyone has a story of a DMPC gone power mad. But how many more stories do you have of transient or recurrent NPCs who show up and slap you with a virtual penis? DMPCs are not only a requirement of a rotating DMing system - they are at the core a system of checks and balances on the DM's actions. The DM giving a name and a character sheet to the party cleric or decker is the DM's way of promising that that character won't whip it out on the table as some sort of stupid power trip. Now, he's the DM, he can break a promise. But there's nothing wrong with him making it in the first place. -Frank

And continue with the fact that I think most arguments against DMPC's are bull****. DMPC's in and of themselves aren't a bad thing, and aren't the source of the problems. DM ego/power trips are.

Just about every game I've run or played has involved a DMPC. Partially this is due to a small play group. The other reason is that I often do PbP games or games over skype, and it's a lot easier to write and describe from a characters perspective than an omnicient perspective.

I'm currently, running a D&D game, and my DMPC is Mikami (https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=1116468) a Tengu princess.

Talakeal
2017-06-10, 02:05 AM
Out of curiosity, how many people would object if one of their players was on his laptop raiding in World of Warcracft and playing D&D at the same time?

goto124
2017-06-10, 06:01 AM
Out of curiosity, how many people would object if one of their players was on his laptop raiding in World of Warcracft and playing D&D at the same time?

A lot, you're supposed to focus on one game at a time. I'm quite sure both his DnD groupmates and his fellow WoW raiders would not appreciate him being half-in-half-out.

Back on topic: If a game has enough players, a DMPC most often isn't required. For stuff like shoring up player's combat skills or providing needed utility, companion NPCs can be useful, and even these NPCs can be left to the players to control. For example, a translator, a fortune teller who provides hints when asked by the PCs, etc. Depending on the situation, you can even make items instead of NPCs, which would serve the same purpose without the implications of the often-hated DMPC archetype.

Does a helpful NPC /DMP have to share loot and XP with the PCs? Such an NPC could easily gain XP independantly of the PCs at a rate slow enough to not overshadow the PCs. If a piece of loot is required to keep the NPC useful to the PCs, the loot could be given and a short explanation given for it ("Bought it from the store during the shopping trip", "A cousin gifted it to me", etc). Again, no need to overshadow the PCs.

Simply using the term 'helpful NPC' instead of 'DMPC' already shifts the focus on what the DM controlling the character should do. DMPC implies trying to grab attention from the setting, or the plot, or from the DM, all of which are at best useless for a DMPC and at worst create a horrific game of "hey players sit back and watch while I show how awesome my own character is". NPC implies taking a backseat to the actual PCs, and helping the players take charge.

That said, I've had fun with actual DMPCs, as in a player who runs an actual PC with their own personality and follows the rules of a PC, while also DMing in the sense of controlling the environment, setting, NPCs, and the monsters we fight. This was, however, in short freeform play-by-post threads with at most 3 players including the DM. I'm not sure how it would turn out if it was done in a real-time game instead of a forum, or if the RP ran on for longer: as per the nature of PbP, many RP threads just die long before anything of importance can happen.

Jay R
2017-06-10, 07:29 AM
Half the time I wonder if debates are due to a misunderstanding of where the other person is coming from... rather than a genuine disagreement. Especially when we start using terms that are vaguely defined.

Yup. I think the best quality of internet discussions at their best is the ability to find the common ground you already have.

pres_man
2017-06-10, 08:51 AM
What a lot of the perceived dangers fundamentally has to do with what the posters beliefs on the roles a player should have. Things like min/maxing their characters, hogging as much stage time as possible, sacrificing the spirit of the rules for any personal advantage, demanding that all game story aspects be about their characters, and demanding that treasure be tweaked for their benefit.

Honestly, the worries about a DM playing a "PC" is often wrapped around a rather unflattering opinion as to what it means to be a player.

Aliquid
2017-06-10, 09:30 AM
Does a helpful NPC /DMP have to share loot and XP with the PCs? Such an NPC could easily gain XP independantly of the PCs at a rate slow enough to not overshadow the PCs. If a piece of loot is required to keep the NPC useful to the PCs, the loot could be given and a short explanation given for it ("Bought it from the store during the shopping trip", "A cousin gifted it to me", etc). Again, no need to overshadow the PCs.For me, that view of the PCs being the center of the universe ruins the verisimilitude of the game for me. If you have one set of rules for the PCs, and a different set of rules for NPCs... it really makes it hard for me to get immersed in the game.



Honestly, the worries about a DM playing a "PC" is often wrapped around a rather unflattering opinion as to what it means to be a player.Well put

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-10, 10:08 AM
For me, that view of the PCs being the center of the universe ruins the verisimilitude of the game for me. If you have one set of rules for the PCs, and a different set of rules for NPCs... it really makes it hard for me to get immersed in the game.


Close to my view. The PCs are people in the setting, the NPCs are people in the setting. Using different rules to represent them would seem to turn the NPCs into set-dressing, into the 2-D storefronts of a wild west movie set.

To me, this is a problem that seeps in from fiction, where too often the protagonists aren't protagonists because they're somehow special, or somehow central to the events... but sadly they're special and central to the events just because they're the protagonists.

But then, some gamers want to emulate fiction, and using different rules to represent the protagonists might make perfect sense in that context... because they're not "extras" or "mooks", they're The Protagonists, dangit!

Personally, I'm only going to use different rules in an RPG, usually streamlined, to represent non-PCs when it's a matter of economy of time and effort. In a hypothetical perfect world, I could represent every one of those 80 enemy soldiers with a full character sheet and a full set of combat rolls, but that would take hours and hours over multiple game sessions just to get through the rolls.




What a lot of the perceived dangers fundamentally has to do with what the posters beliefs on the roles a player should have. Things like min/maxing their characters, hogging as much stage time as possible, sacrificing the spirit of the rules for any personal advantage, demanding that all game story aspects be about their characters, and demanding that treasure be tweaked for their benefit.

Honestly, the worries about a DM playing a "PC" is often wrapped around a rather unflattering opinion as to what it means to be a player.


In some cases that could be true. That's certainly not what I think of as the role of a "player", however, and I can see some problems with GMPCs.

For most PCs, the character and even the player are both limited to roughly what the character within the setting would know about what's going on. The GMPC, however, always has the voice of the universe haunting his dreams and whispering in his ear. The player of the GMPC isn't really exploring, or discovering... they can never be surprised by the enemy... the universe, the future, and other people hold no secrets from the GMPC.

Dragonexx
2017-06-10, 11:00 AM
DMPCs should have character sheets that others can see, just like any other PC.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-10, 11:10 AM
What a lot of the perceived dangers fundamentally has to do with what the posters beliefs on the roles a player should have. Things like min/maxing their characters, hogging as much stage time as possible, sacrificing the spirit of the rules for any personal advantage, demanding that all game story aspects be about their characters, and demanding that treasure be tweaked for their benefit.
This entirely ignores the inherent Conflict of Interest where the guy who's supposed to be giving you challenges and making life hard for your PC is also inexplicably a PC on your side.

I'll frame it like this:
Suppose you're a football player, and one day the referee decides he's going to be your Tight End. Is this OK?
Suppose the opposing quarterback decides he's going to play as your quarterback every other play. He hasn't switched teams, heavens no. He's just going to replace your missing quarterback. Is this OK?

These are what are called Conflicts of Interest. The problem with DMPCs is that they are inherently a Conflict of Interest for a combination of the reasons the above are.

In both of the above, theoretically, all could be well. Both situations could resolve just fine. And they would still be a conflict of interest.

My problem is not that no one has ever or will ever have a good experience with a DMPC.



Honestly, the worries about a DM playing a "PC" is often wrapped around a rather unflattering opinion as to what it means to be a player.

For myself, at least, this is categorically not true. It is based nothing on a Player's "duties" but entirely on what is appropriate conduct for a person in a position of oppositional power (the GM).

For the same reason that, sure, a banker issuing himself a big loan could be entirely benign, there is enough risk of such being a manipulation of authority that people would rightly question it.
Where I work now I can't accept gifts worth more than about 5 dollars, because I work in a psych hospital. For me to accept a gift is a conflict of interest regarding the authority I wield (yes, sometimes oppositional to their desires)over the patients.

Companies have extremely strict rules about actions which present even a perceived conflict of interest because people get suspicious immediately. Sure, it could be entirely benign. But appearances matter, conflicts of interest are dangerous, and need to be approached with extreme caution.

That's the core of the issue for most people. The DM, weilding greater authority than the PCs to begin with, meant to already walk the tenuous line between neutral arbitrator and active opponent, now ALSO wants to be on my team, with a PC?

My position isn't "never have a DMPC." My position is "be extremely open, communicative, and careful if you need to introduce a DMPC and try to find alternative solutions whenever possible." Treat it with the caution it merits, and don't do it willy-nilly. DMPCs require a lot of trust from your players. If you have that, great. If you don't, refrain from throwing in a DMPC.

Simple.

Aliquid
2017-06-10, 11:25 AM
For myself, at least, this is categorically not true. It is based nothing on a Player's "duties" but entirely on what is appropriate conduct for a person in a position of oppositional power (the GM).I've always had the philosophy that the GM is on the same team as the players... not the opposing team. Everyone is working together to make an entertaining story.

I know it sounds like trivial semantics, but I think it makes a big difference. If you see the DM and the PCs as opponents in a game... where the DM is trying to "win", then that's a game I don't want to be part of. Yes, I know that the DM is running opponents of the PCs, but the DM still shouldn't want those opponents to actually win... the DM wants the PCs to win (with enough challenge to make it entertaining and rewarding)

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-10, 11:32 AM
I've always had the philosophy that the GM is on the same team as the players... not the opposing team. Everyone is working together to make an entertaining story.

I know it sounds like trivial semantics, but I think it makes a big difference. If you see the DM and the PCs as opponents in a game... where the DM is trying to "win", then that's a game I don't want to be part of. Yes, I know that the DM is running opponents of the PCs, but the DM still shouldn't want those opponents to actually win... the DM wants the PCs to win (with enough challenge to make it entertaining and rewarding)

I've long thought that the GM should be neutral, rather than wanting anyone to "win", but concerned with the enjoyment of all persons involved.

pres_man
2017-06-10, 12:04 PM
For most PCs, the character and even the player are both limited to roughly what the character within the setting would know about what's going on. The GMPC, however, always has the voice of the universe haunting his dreams and whispering in his ear.

Only as much as every character the DM runs is in the same situation. Now, I can't speak for how other DMs approach their games, I can only speak for myself. Random inkeeper #12, Joe Taventub, has no (in)direct link to the mind of fates/greater deities. He knows only what he would know from his limited existance. Heck, he is not even aware that he is an NPC within a game. He believes he is a full fledged person with dreams and hopes. And so it is with any Party Ally I may include in a game.


The player of the GMPC isn't really exploring, or discovering... they can never be surprised by the enemy... the universe, the future, and other people hold no secrets from the GMPC.

To be clear, I would never argue the experience that a GM running a Party Ally has is the same as the experience that a non-GM running a PC. Of course, the experience a veteran player has is going to be different from the experience a novice is going to have, so I don't think the actual experience needs to be the same. I don't define a "GMPC" based on the emotional or subjective experience of the person controlling it, merely on its mechanics and function within the game setting.


the universe, the future, and other people hold no secrets from the GMPC.

Of course the "GMPC" could be surprised by any of those. Now the GM couldn't (actually they could depending on how far they plan the "future"), but there is a difference between the character and the person playing the character (in-game knowledge vs. out-of-game knowledge for example). I mean, just because Quinton Tarantino is directing a movie, doesn't mean the character he is playing in the movie can't "act" surprised (Q.T.'s ability to "act" is debatable, but you get my point I hope).

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-10, 12:09 PM
I've always had the philosophy that the GM is on the same team as the players... not the opposing team. Everyone is working together to make an entertaining story.

I know it sounds like trivial semantics, but I think it makes a big difference. If you see the DM and the PCs as opponents in a game... where the DM is trying to "win", then that's a game I don't want to be part of. Yes, I know that the DM is running opponents of the PCs, but the DM still shouldn't want those opponents to actually win... the DM wants the PCs to win (with enough challenge to make it entertaining and rewarding)

"Oppositional" does not mean "antagonistic." You're throwing out a red herring here and suggesting that being in an oppositional position means you're in am antagonistic position, and that by pointing out the oppositional position of the DM that I believe they are necessarily antagonistic.

This is not my belief. Please do not imply such.


I have a dual philosophy:
1. Death is the least interesting thing I can do to a PC.
2. When you're in combat, your opponents play for keeps. They will try to kill you. They will do everything they can within the rules to make sure it's YOU who dies, not them. (And if this is not possible, ensure they survive to see another sunrise) To do otherwise cheapens your victory.

The way to be neutral is to play the NPCs as they would behave. And they want to win. So they will try to win. I am in a position of opposition to the goals of the PCs, plain and simple.

If my daughter wants to put her finger in a socket, I will say "no." I am now oppositional to her goals, but not antagonistic. I'm not hurting her.

When my players want a thing, I will make sure the process to acquire it is fraught with cost and risk. I am oppositional. I still hope they succeed, and design things so they can succeed. I am not antagonistic.

Don't mix the two.

Tanarii
2017-06-10, 12:25 PM
For some reason some people find the idea of challenging PCs, of making them work for their win, to be a big problem.

There are things worse than killing PCs. Making the players feel like they have no challenge, or no purpose, no point, is worse. Making them ask: what's the point?

For example, neutering them by making them play with a DMPC that solves all their problems for them, and makes them feel pointless and like a fifth wheel.

(But also, killing them repeatedly in ways they have no hope of overcoming, until they give up trying. Killing PCs can also end up at 'what's the point'. :smallwink:)

Aliquid
2017-06-10, 01:08 PM
I've long thought that the GM should be neutral, rather than wanting anyone to "win", but concerned with the enjoyment of all persons involved.You know, you are right. Neutral is a better view of the DM. But, I think that still supports my view that the DM can play either side of the battle... he has not stake in either side winning, as long as everything plays within the rules of the game and fits the 'reality' of the setting.


"Oppositional" does not mean "antagonistic." You're throwing out a red herring here and suggesting that being in an oppositional position means you're in am antagonistic position, and that by pointing out the oppositional position of the DM that I believe they are necessarily antagonistic. I don't believe the DM is oppositional or antagonistic. The NPCs, monsters and challenges in the game may be both oppositional and antagonistic, but the DM as a person doesn't need to be either.

DM's view "I'm not trying to make the PCs die... I'm just role playing what the Troll would realistically be doing under these circumstances, how it pans out is up to the dice"


This is not my belief. Please do not imply such.It wasn't my intention to imply it was, I was speaking hypothetically. If you (or anyone) played with that mindset, then I wouldn't be interested in the game.


The way to be neutral is to play the NPCs as they would behave. And they want to win. So they will try to win. I am in a position of opposition to the goals of the PCs, plain and simple.Again semantics... but I do believe it makes a difference. I believe the monsters are in opposition to the PCs, but the DM isn't in opposition to the players. The DM isn't trying to make the players win or loose, he is just presenting the situation as neutrally as possible.

As I type this, I'm realizing that when the DM designs the encounter, he/she designs it with an oppositional mindset, but when the encounter is actually happening the DM isn't trying to win or loose.

And now I'm trying to remember how this whole debate relates to the concept of a DMPC.....

The DM is designing an encounter in opposition to the PC's objectives. That means that the DM is designing an encounter that is also in opposition to the "helpful NPC's" objectives. I see that as being true, but I still don't see it as an issue.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-10, 02:36 PM
You know, you are right. Neutral is a better view of the DM. But, I think that still supports my view that the DM can play either side of the battle... he has not stake in either side winning, as long as everything plays within the rules of the game and fits the 'reality' of the setting.

I don't believe the DM is oppositional or antagonistic. The NPCs, monsters and challenges in the game may be both oppositional and antagonistic, but the DM as a person doesn't need to be either.

DM's view "I'm not trying to make the PCs die... I'm just role playing what the Troll would realistically be doing under these circumstances, how it pans out is up to the dice"

It wasn't my intention to imply it was, I was speaking hypothetically. If you (or anyone) played with that mindset, then I wouldn't be interested in the game.

Again semantics... but I do believe it makes a difference. I believe the monsters are in opposition to the PCs, but the DM isn't in opposition to the players. The DM isn't trying to make the players win or loose, he is just presenting the situation as neutrally as possible.

As I type this, I'm realizing that when the DM designs the encounter, he/she designs it with an oppositional mindset, but when the encounter is actually happening the DM isn't trying to win or loose.

And now I'm trying to remember how this whole debate relates to the concept of a DMPC.....

The DM is designing an encounter in opposition to the PC's objectives. That means that the DM is designing an encounter that is also in opposition to the "helpful NPC's" objectives. I see that as being true, but I still don't see it as an issue.

You're still mixing up Oppositional and Antagonistic. I can Oppose or frustrate your desired action without wanting you to fail. (That, or you are confusing being oppositional to the PCs and by extension the players within the game means you're being oppositional to the players outside the game, too. Which is equally fallacious.)

As a DM, your actions are oppositional to the party's goals. In the end, YOU create the encounters. YOU decide tactics. YOU are the fundamental place from which the opposition flows. You are oppositional, definitionaly, to the PCs.

Saying "no, the NPCs are oppositional" doesn't mean anything. You are the NPCs. They aren't real. They have no will except the one you give them. In the end, it is you. Externalizing to some fictional non-entity that you create and operate via puppet-strings does not actually make you not the origin of the opposition.

Edit: another potential confusion point:
Being oppositional to the goal of "exit the dungeon" does not necessitate being oppositional to the goal of "have fun."

Aliquid
2017-06-10, 05:18 PM
As a DM, your actions are oppositional to the party's goals. In the end, YOU create the encounters. YOU decide tactics. YOU are the fundamental place from which the opposition flows. You are oppositional, definitionaly, to the PCs.I still assert that it is more nuanced than that.

There can be plenty of positive interactions in the game. The PCs talking to the merchant, the priest, their spy... etc. The NPCs who want the PCs to succeed and offer their help, advice, knowledge and resources. When the PCs are having these interactions, the DM is not behaving in a way that is oppositional to them. The DM's interaction with the PCs can switch from oppositional to supportive to ambivalent, depending on what's going on in the game.

The DM himself isn't oppositional, some scenarios are, and he has to mediate those scenarios with a neutral mindset.

Yes, he does create the scenarios, and he is oppositional at that point in time, but during the game he isn't by default oppositional.

And considering he can switch back and forth between these roles, I don't see any problem with running a helpful NPC that tags along during the game.

pres_man
2017-06-10, 05:53 PM
Would people classify a teacher's or a coach's mindset as oppositional or antagonistic?

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-10, 07:18 PM
I still assert that it is more nuanced than that.

There can be plenty of positive interactions in the game. The PCs talking to the merchant, the priest, their spy... etc. The NPCs who want the PCs to succeed and offer their help, advice, knowledge and resources. When the PCs are having these interactions, the DM is not behaving in a way that is oppositional to them. The DM's interaction with the PCs can switch from oppositional to supportive to ambivalent, depending on what's going on in the game.

The DM himself isn't oppositional, some scenarios are, and he has to mediate those scenarios with a neutral mindset.

Yes, he does create the scenarios, and he is oppositional at that point in time, but during the game he isn't by default oppositional.

And considering he can switch back and forth between these roles, I don't see any problem with running a helpful NPC that tags along during the game.

The DM will generally be more oppositional in a given session than helpful. If that is not so, Your players are either going unchallenged or not much is happening. In D&D (and most TRPGs) the fun is mostly born directly from opposition and conflict.

If YOU are presenting a situation opposed to your players' goals, you are in a position of opposition. Again, saying that you can be not-oppositional while being the actor causing the opposition to exist in the first place does not follow. Lines or distinctions between NPC and DM are entirely imaginary. They have no wills. They are extensions of your own will. Asserting otherwise is exactly as fallacious as it was the first time.


On Teachers and Coaches:
I would refer to Teachers and Coaches as having somewhat oppositional roles to their students, though not to the same degree that DMs are, and the relationship is very, very different.

Jay R
2017-06-11, 09:22 AM
I've always had the philosophy that the GM is on the same team as the players... not the opposing team. Everyone is working together to make an entertaining story.

This sounds very reasonable until you think it through, and realize that this completely changes the meaning of "the same team".

In any sport or game, not just D&D, both teams are working together to make an entertaining game. And yes, I should treat the other team with respect, and hope that they can play as well, and enjoy the game as much, as I do. Sports are always better when the two teams feel mutual respect, and accept each other as people sharing the same joys and the same passions.

That doesn't mean we're on the same team. it just doesn't.

Similarly, saying the DM is on the same team is using the word "team" wrongly. The DM is running the opposing team. She is also running all the allies. And all neutral parties. And also making rulings about the rules and about what happens.

Yes, the DM is trying to run a fair and entertaining game for her friends, and trying to make it a compelling story. She should design the encounters so the players have every reasonable chance to win. The enjoyment of the players should be her goal. But that's not what "same team" means.

Except during PvP, all party members are on the same team. The DM is not in the same situation , and should not be described with the same phrase.


I know it sounds like trivial semantics, but I think it makes a big difference.

It's not trivial semantics. It's crucial semantics, and it makes a huge difference. The DM's job includes aspect of the coach, minor teammates, opposing team, and referee.


I know it sounds like trivial semantics, but I think it makes a big difference. If you see the DM and the PCs as opponents in a game... where the DM is trying to "win", then that's a game I don't want to be part of.

Nobody here has suggested that. Calling the DM the "opponent" is just as simplistic, and just as misleading, as saying she's on the same team, and for the same reasons. The DM is primarily the referee and the scenario writer. She also plays many characters, both allies and opponents.

Yes, the DM should want them to have fun in a fulfilling experience. But she should also make fair, unbiased rulings.

I tell my students, "When you are studying statistics, I am 100% on your side. I want you to learn, I want you to succeed, I want you all to make A's. I'm your coach, and I want you to win.

"But when I grade the test, I am completely neutral. I'm the referee, and I will mark your answers right or wrong based on the work you did, with no hint of favoritism."

I do the same thing as a DM.

[Getting back to the topic, having a DMPC is the equivalent of taking the test myself, and assigning myself a grade. Even if I deliberately make some mistakes, and give myself a C, what I'm doing is not what the students are doing, and I shouldn't pretend it is. Similarly, even if I make my DMPC fall into the trap, while I know it's there, that isn't what PCs are doing when they fall into the trap accidentally, so I shouldn't call it the same thing.]


Yes, I know that the DM is running opponents of the PCs, but the DM still shouldn't want those opponents to actually win... the DM wants the PCs to win (with enough challenge to make it entertaining and rewarding)

That's fine - as long as the DM's desire for the players to win doesn't make her believe that she's on their team. She has a job to do that requires fairness and neutrality.

She should design the encounter wanting the PCs to win (with enough challenge to make it entertaining and rewarding). But she should then run the encounter as a neutral judge, fairly and honestly, so that the outcome is what the players' choices make it. If not, what good are my choices?

If the DM makes me win even when I play poorly, then what reward do I get for playing well?

And in what sense am I playing at all, or even helping to tell a story, if my choices have no more effect than they do when I watch a movie?

Tanarii
2017-06-11, 10:22 AM
That's fine - as long as the DM's desire for the players to win doesn't make her believe that she's on their team. She has a job to do that requires fairness and neutrality.

She should design the encounter wanting the PCs to win (with enough challenge to make it entertaining and rewarding). But she should then run the encounter as a neutral judge, fairly and honestly, so that the outcome is what the players' choices make it. If not, what good are my choices?

If the DM makes me win even when I play poorly, then what reward do I get for playing well?

And in what sense am I playing at all, or even helping to tell a story, if my choices have no more effect than they do when I watch a movie?
This right here, is what is worse than 'killing your players' in D&D. DMs that are afraid to let players make choices that will get them killed are limiting player agency. Although there are some few TRPG games that contain a free range on interesting player choices, and they still can't get themselves killed, IMX D&D is t isn't one designed for that.


Especially since raising characters with large amounts of invested time who made simple mistakes or fell individually due to circumstance is fairly easy in modern D&D. It takes TPKs with no other PC parties who can retrieve bodies, or mistakes that result in body loss, once you approach 'name' levels.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-11, 10:53 AM
In terms of wanting the game to be fun and "constructive", the GM is (or should be) on the same side as the players.

The GM isn't "the other team", the GM is more or less the entirety of reality outside of the PCs -- the GM has to handle everything the players don't directly control. If everything that isn't the PCs is "the other team', you have a very malign reality for those PCs to overcome.

Jay R
2017-06-11, 11:25 AM
The GM isn't "the other team", the GM is more or less the entirety of reality outside of the PCs...

Clear, complete, succinct. Very nice.

Aliquid
2017-06-11, 11:43 AM
She should design the encounter wanting the PCs to win (with enough challenge to make it entertaining and rewarding). But she should then run the encounter as a neutral judge, fairly and honestly, so that the outcome is what the players' choices make it. If not, what good are my choices?I already refined my view after the post you quoted, and said almost the same thing as this in a following post.

Overall, the GM has the same goal as the players. He wants the PCs to successfully complete the quest
While developing the campaign, the GM will have an oppositional mindset as he/she creates encounters that will challenge the PCs
During the actual game-play the GM will play a completely neutral role, refereeing the events as realistically as possible


[Getting back to the topic, having a DMPC is the equivalent of taking the test myself, and assigning myself a grade. Even if I deliberately make some mistakes, and give myself a C, what I'm doing is not what the students are doing, and I shouldn't pretend it is. Similarly, even if I make my DMPC fall into the trap, while I know it's there, that isn't what PCs are doing when they fall into the trap accidentally, so I shouldn't call it the same thing.]This analogy, and the sports analogies that keep coming up just don't work for me. The main difference is that the overall goal is different. The GM wants the PCs to successfully complete the campaign. The opposing team in sports may want everyone to have fun, but their overall objective is for you to loose. The students don't care how well you do on your mock test, and you don't care either... it has no impact on either of your experiences.

The "walking into a trap" example comes up a lot too. OK... fine, the NPC walks into a trap and gets hurt. The GM needs to play this as neutrally as possible. Maybe even rolls a die for a random decision as to which route the NPC walks. The GM shouldn't care if the NPC walks into the trap or not, the GM is neutral during gameplay. If it happens it happens.

Onto the "conflict of interest" or the challenge a GM has knowing both sides of the story... as I have said before. This already happens on a regular basis.

Take the following example:

Combat starts. One of the enemy happens to be invisible and is sneaking up around behind the PCs for an ambush. The GM knows this of course, and therefore the NPC knows this. The NPC could thwart this plan easily, but the DM can't let him do that, because the NPC doesn't KNOW this. This appears to be the challenge people keep bringing up... the GM knows too much, and has a conflict of interest.

BUT the opposite situation takes place all the time:
Combat starts. One of the PCs happens to be invisible and is sneaking up around behind the enemy for an ambush. The GM knows this of course, and therefore the enemy knows this. The one of the enemy combatants could thwart this plan easily, but the DM can't let him do that, because the enemy combatant doesn't KNOW this... the GM knows too much, and has a conflict of interest.

As the above illustrates, the GM already has to do this sort of thing all the time. I really don't understand why this is a problem when a "friendly NPC" knows the enemy's plan in advance, but it isn't a problem when the enemy combatants (technically NPCs), knows the PC's plan in advance.

The Cats
2017-06-11, 12:14 PM
I use a DMPC (I was actually going to make a thread but then saw this one. DISCLAIMER: I haven't read the discussion past the first few posts so my apologies if this is repetitive or no longer relevant)

There were two sessions in a row where for various reasons only two of my five players managed to make it to the game. To flesh out the party I added an NPC for them to adventure with: Eobard the Life domain Cleric (5e).

My intention was to play him passively but I didn't really follow through in the first session. In combat he used a a lot of control spells nad the life cleric's healing. It was OK, except thanks to his spell choice he actually ended up trivializing a few encounters. I could have used different spells but I was enjoying having a PC in combat and wanted to do cool stuff with him. the players didn't seem overtly annoyed per se, but they did make comments like "That was easy, why'd we even bother coming up with a plan? Should've just run in." The two PCs never interacted with him (though the players were the 'bash brothers' of the group and weren't big on chatting with NPCs in any case).

The next two-player session I went full buff spells for Eobard, and when he ran out of slots he used the Help action a whole lot. This went over much better, I think. The players (this time it was two of the players who were more into RPing) really seemed to enjoy having Eobard around. They interacted with him more as well, which gave me the opportunity to have him come across as inexperienced and worried; basically following the players' leads and wanting to learn from them.

The difference in playstyle for Eobard lead to a few funny moments when he finally met the whole group: The bash brothers remembered him as a super-competent combat badass while the RPers knew him as a worrisome personality who just wants to protect those close to him. "Why don't you just paralyze the Ogre like you did last time?" "Oh... well, I was just in a really bad place when I was doing that kind of stuff you know?"

The obvious contrast in the first two times I had Eobard join the party gave me a good idea of what makes a "good DMPC." Make them helpful, keep them out of the spotlight, and give them a memorable personality (of a kind that keeps them out of the spotlight).

This was my experience, anyway.

GloatingSwine
2017-06-11, 12:18 PM
But I want to play Hackmaster. I like and enjoy Hackmaster. My players all know Hackmaster and won't play anything else. But we need a Cleric, and no one rolled the stats for them.

Enter the Permanent NPC. Now, this permanent NPC might be just a member of the party who doesn't tend to take point, or he might be the star of the show that the rest of you get to attend. Generally, the second is called a DMPC, while the first is less likely to be so.

Sir Healbot the Convenient is unlikely to be accused of being a DMPC.

DMPCs are an attractive nuisance for a certain type of DM, the ones that like the story to run the way they want it, which is so much easier if there's a Main Character.

DMPCs have an unfortunately high incidence of being The Main Character.

Tanarii
2017-06-11, 12:32 PM
Sir Healbot the Convenient is unlikely to be accused of being a DMPC.
Especially since there's no reason he can't be a Henchman (PC controlled NPC) instead.

The Cats
2017-06-11, 01:01 PM
Especially since there's no reason he can't be a Henchman (PC controlled NPC) instead.

Unless you're running for brand-new players who are still learning how to control their own single characters. But I understand that's a fringe case.

Twizzly513
2017-06-11, 01:05 PM
In the game I'm currently DMing, I instituted a DMPC named Scott who was a wizard. The party consisted of a bard, fighter, and cleric, and to make up for a hole they had, I added Scott.

The main reason I put him in was so that they had options of where to go on the plane they were in. Scott had different goals than them, and was there for maybe 4 or 5 sessions. I took care so that he never did steal the spotlight. He did good work as a wizard, but he never spoke unless addressed first, he never got magic items just for him, and if they were in a puzzle they might ask his opinion, then I'd roll behind the screen and say he didn't know. The group liked him quite a lot. He was very helpful in some situations, useless in others, and was pretty sarcastic in conversation.

I'd like to think I handled it correctly, but doing it perfectly all the time is surgical.

The Cats
2017-06-11, 01:12 PM
In the game I'm currently DMing, I instituted a DMPC named Scott who was a wizard. The party consisted of a bard, fighter, and cleric, and to make up for a hole they had, I added Scott.

The main reason I put him in was so that they had options of where to go on the plane they were in. Scott had different goals than them, and was there for maybe 4 or 5 sessions. I took care so that he never did steal the spotlight. He did good work as a wizard, but he never spoke unless addressed first, he never got magic items just for him, and if they were in a puzzle they might ask his opinion, then I'd roll behind the screen and say he didn't know. The group liked him quite a lot. He was very helpful in some situations, useless in others, and was pretty sarcastic in conversation.

I'd like to think I handled it correctly, but doing it perfectly all the time is surgical.

This is very clever. I was having trouble with exactly that situation (not wanting to give stuff away). I'll use that next time.

Jay R
2017-06-11, 01:23 PM
This analogy, and the sports analogies that keep coming up just don't work for me.

I didn't like your sports analogy either; that was the whole point of my post. [The sports analogy came up when you said the DM is on the "same team" as the players. We've now both shown why it doesn't work.] I think we've come together on that aspect.


The main difference is that the overall goal is different. The GM wants the PCs to successfully complete the The GM shouldn't care if the NPC walks into the trap or not, the GM is neutral during gameplay. If it happens it happens.

Exactly. And the person running a PC should care if the PC runs into the trap. I certainly care whether my PC walks into the trap. That's what's wrong with the DM treating one specific NPC as his own PC. Either he treats the DMPC as a PC, by caring very much if he falls into the trap), or it's not a DMPC at all; it's a standard NPC, and the DM doesn't care if the NPC walks into the trap or not.


As the above illustrates, the GM already has to do this sort of thing all the time. I really don't understand why this is a problem when a "friendly NPC" knows the enemy's plan in advance, but it isn't a problem when the enemy combatants (technically NPCs), knows the PC's plan in advance.

That's a good question, and deserves a complete answer.

What you described is not a conflict of interest because, as you said, the DM has no interest in whether the NPC falls into the trap. The DM is not on the NPC's side. There's no interest to conflict with.

I have no problem with a DM running an NPC who is loyal to the party, or even a member of the party. You've described quite well how that works - as long as the DM stays just as neutral about that character as she is about all the other NPCs she controls.

But it's very different when it's a DMPC. The DM is on her DMPC's side. A DMPC is simply a character the DM treats like a player treats his PC. I identify with my PC; I'm on my PC's side. For the same reasons, the DM identifies with her DMPC; she's on her DMPC's side. That's what it means to call the character a DMPC instead of an NPC.

That identification with the character is the core of the conflict of interest. And without it, it's not a DMPC but just an NPC.

Aliquid
2017-06-11, 02:05 PM
That identification with the character is the core of the conflict of interest. And without it, it's not a DMPC but just an NPC.This aspect of the debate is purely a result of different definitions of what a "DMPC" is. I agree that your definition of a DMPC is something that a DM shouldn't use. I have been trying to use the term "friendly NPC" instead of DMPC with my recent posts, to avoid that confusion.

I think we both agree that a player has a certain emotional attachment to his/her PC, and if a DM has that same type of attachment to an NPC that travels with the group... that is a bad thing. If that is how you define a DMPC, I completely agree that a DMPC is a bad thing.

The trick here is that there are multiple conversations going on here... and there are other viewpoints that I don't agree with on this thread (ones that assert that any NPC controlled by the DM that regularly travels with the PCs is a bad idea). While debating that issue, it might sound like I am arguing with your view of a DMPC but I am not.

To be clear, the point I am defending is:
If a DM has an NPC that follows the PCs around for the majority of a campaign, and collects XP and loot equally with the PCs, that CAN be ok. As long as:
- The DM is completely neutral as to weather or not this "friendly NPC" succeeds or not.
- The DM doesn't care if the PCs say to the NPC, "move along buddy we don't need your help anymore".
- The DM doesn't give any preferential treatment to that NPC.
- The NPC is more of a 'sidekick', than an equal, and certainly doesn't outshine the PCs or save the day

(there are probably a couple more points that I missed)

If you say "That isn't a DMPC, that is just a helpful NPC.", then I'm happy to stop using the term DMPC to describe it.

My question is - do you think a 'helpful NPC' like that is something that should always be avoided?

If not then we are on the same page.

Jay R
2017-06-11, 04:23 PM
To be clear, the point I am defending is:
If a DM has an NPC that follows the PCs around for the majority of a campaign, and collects XP and loot equally with the PCs, that CAN be ok. As long as:
- The DM is completely neutral as to weather or not this "friendly NPC" succeeds or not.
- The DM doesn't care if the PCs say to the NPC, "move along buddy we don't need your help anymore".
- The DM doesn't give any preferential treatment to that NPC.
- The NPC is more of a 'sidekick', than an equal, and certainly doesn't outshine the PCs or save the day

(there are probably a couple more points that I missed)

Agreed, mostly. Here are the minor disagreements:

If a DM has an NPC ...
This is a danger sign. I would prefer, "There is a NPC who ...". The DM identifying that character is hers is exactly the problem.


- The DM doesn't care if the PCs say to the NPC, "move along buddy we don't need your help anymore".

If we are trying to act like they are real people, then this doesn't automatically mean the NPC will move along. How does that character feel about it?


- The NPC is more of a 'sidekick', than an equal, and certainly doesn't outshine the PCs or save the day
It depends. This could be the great lord or wizard who hired them, and saves them from some things in order to use them in the real adventures. It could be the prince or princess whom they are hired to protect, and far more important than they are. Maybe it's the dragon who's going to eat them if they don't help him recover his stolen hoard. It could be any kind of NPC. He or she just can't be a PC - even the DM's.


If you say "That isn't a DMPC, that is just a helpful NPC.", then I'm happy to stop using the term DMPC to describe it.

Please do. You brought up semantics as something trivial. It's not trivial; it's the study of meaning. In this case, the meaning of the phrase DMPC is a character run by the DM who is treated like a PC. Every aspect of considering that character a PC is a potential problem.


My question is - do you think a 'helpful NPC' like that is something that should always be avoided?

Of course not. I never really considered the question, because it self-evidently can't be avoided, without dropping huge chunks of the game, like Charm Person, Animal Friendship, handle animal, diplomacy, bargaining, etc.


If not then we are on the same page.

Looks like it. I primarily chimed in to disagree with you on the subject of the "same team", and we already cleared that up.

Thrudd
2017-06-11, 04:47 PM
The DM must be impartial in all things. NPCs should be treated as characters with their own desires and behaviors, and their actions should be made only according to what makes sense for the character. For the sake of impartiality, it may help to use dice to decide an NPCs reactions to certain things wherever possible. An allied NPC may be placed under control of the players in combat, perhaps only taking control away when they suggest something that seems out of character (using dice rolls to check their reactions and morale).

An NPC must never embody the personal desires of the DM, and a DM who shows partiality or personal investment in an NPC is crossing a line.

The Extinguisher
2017-06-11, 05:12 PM
The DM will generally be more oppositional in a given session than helpful. If that is not so, Your players are either going unchallenged or not much is happening. In D&D (and most TRPGs) the fun is mostly born directly from opposition and conflict.


I mean this is actually just incorrect. The fact that you only find fun in opposition doesn't mean that it's the only way to do it.


Is it really necessary to argue over "i don't like this" and "i don't play games this way"?

pres_man
2017-06-11, 08:08 PM
Exactly. And the person running a PC should care if the PC runs into the trap. I certainly care whether my PC walks into the trap. That's what's wrong with the DM treating one specific NPC as his own PC. Either he treats the DMPC as a PC, by caring very much if he falls into the trap), or it's not a DMPC at all; it's a standard NPC, and the DM doesn't care if the NPC walks into the trap or not.

That's a good question, and deserves a complete answer.

What you described is not a conflict of interest because, as you said, the DM has no interest in whether the NPC falls into the trap. The DM is not on the NPC's side. There's no interest to conflict with.

I have no problem with a DM running an NPC who is loyal to the party, or even a member of the party. You've described quite well how that works - as long as the DM stays just as neutral about that character as she is about all the other NPCs she controls.

But it's very different when it's a DMPC. The DM is on her DMPC's side. A DMPC is simply a character the DM treats like a player treats his PC. I identify with my PC; I'm on my PC's side. For the same reasons, the DM identifies with her DMPC; she's on her DMPC's side. That's what it means to call the character a DMPC instead of an NPC.

That identification with the character is the core of the conflict of interest. And without it, it's not a DMPC but just an NPC.

So if I am a player and I have a character that I am playing and I don't have the same level of emotional investment than someone else has in their character, then my character is not actually a PC? Seems a bit strange to define what is a PC by how the player feels about, consider different players may feel differently about their characters. Some players may get annoyed if a DM bends the rules to "save" the player's character while another player may purposefully avoid mentioning a rule that they are aware of that would cause their character to die/lose/fail. Not to mention anything in between.

Tanarii
2017-06-11, 08:35 PM
I mean this is actually just incorrect. The fact that you only find fun in opposition doesn't mean that it's the only way to do it. So how do you challenge your players, without being oppositional? I agree there are many ways to play games, but if you're not challenging them, what are they doing?

Thrudd
2017-06-11, 08:55 PM
So if I am a player and I have a character that I am playing and I don't have the same level of emotional investment than someone else has in their character, then my character is not actually a PC? Seems a bit strange to define what is a PC by how the player feels about, consider different players may feel differently about their characters. Some players may get annoyed if a DM bends the rules to "save" the player's character while another player may purposefully avoid mentioning a rule that they are aware of that would cause their character to die/lose/fail. Not to mention anything in between.

None of that is relevant. A PC is defined by the fact that it is controlled solely by a player and not the DM, it doesn't matter what the player feels about it. Non-player characters are all the other characters, that are controlled by the DM. If the DM allows their knowledge of the game to interfere or influence how those NPCs act in a way that would be inappropriate for their character or that interferes with the relevance of the players' decision making, then they are doing something inappropriate for a DM. If a DM wants to keep a certain NPC alive to the detriment of verisimilitude/characterization and to the point that they might cheat in order to make it happen, that is a huge problem. If a DM thinks certain NPCs are "their characters", but other ones aren't, that is a bad sign. Every single orc and goblin and villager is "your" character, if you're the DM.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-11, 09:05 PM
I mean this is actually just incorrect. The fact that you only find fun in opposition doesn't mean that it's the only way to do it.


Is it really necessary to argue over "i don't like this" and "i don't play games this way"?

You're confusing "mostly" and "only" as being the same word. Which they aren't.

Imagine a TRPG where everything you say is assumed to just work as you say. No dice rolls, no chance of failure. There are no problems or complications. This is a TRPG devoid of conflict.
It can still be fun, and there are other things you could do to have fun. But most of what TRPGs derive their fun from is gone.

pres_man
2017-06-11, 09:18 PM
None of that is relevant. A PC is defined by the fact that it is controlled solely by a player and not the DM, it doesn't matter what the player feels about it.

I would agree, though I would put on certain conditions such as certain mechanics and such. For example, a player could have sole control on his wizard's familiar, that doesn't make the familiar a PC. Likewise, a player may have sole control of his character's, with the leadership feat, cohort. Again that doesn't make the cohort a PC.


Non-player characters are all the other characters, that are controlled by the DM.

As well as some possibly player controlled characters (familiars, cohorts, mounts, etc.).


If the DM allows their knowledge of the game to interfere or influence how those NPCs act in a way that would be inappropriate for their character or that interferes with the relevance of the players' decision making, then they are doing something inappropriate for a DM.

Similarly if a player used inappropriate knowledge for the benefit of their PC, that would be also a problem. This is a game play problem, not a character problem.


If a DM wants to keep a certain NPC alive to the detriment of verisimilitude/characterization and to the point that they might cheat in order to make it happen, that is a huge problem.

And I would argue that a player that knows the rules perhaps better than a DM and does the same thing is a huge problem as well. A people involved in the game should probably equally invested in the honestly of the game.


If a DM thinks certain NPCs are "their characters", but other ones aren't, that is a bad sign. Every single orc and goblin and villager is "your" character, if you're the DM.

Why is this a "bad sign"? Claims like this are stated as if they are self-evident. Honestly, it often seems in these discussions that people believe players are suppose to cheat and lie and do whatever they can to get their characters to "win" and it is the DM's responsibility to stop them. Thus if a DM is playing an effective "PC", they are obviously going to cheat and not stop themselves. Again, this doesn't seem a very flattering view of players.

Jay R
2017-06-11, 09:46 PM
So if I am a player and I have a character that I am playing and I don't have the same level of emotional investment than someone else has in their character, then my character is not actually a PC?

No, I didn't say that. If you want to know if I said something, there's a simple test. Did you block copy it from my post and put quotes around it, or did you have to type it yourself because you couldn't find it in my words?

This is a deliberate misinterpretation of my writing. I did not express any interest in measuring levels of emotional investment between players, and did not ever suggest comparing levels of emotional investment between players. But your PC is in fact the one character that you identify with, as everybody I've ever seen plays the game.

I will accept the hypothetical possibility that some players do not identify in any way with their PCs. I just haven't seen it, in 42 years of play.

Nonetheless, a DMPC is a character that the DM thinks of as her PC, and the rest of the NPCs are characters that the DM does not consider as her PCs.


Seems a bit strange to define what is a PC by how the player feels about, consider different players may feel differently about their characters.

Seems strange to me, too. Since neither of us has any interest in such a proposal, let's stop talking about it.

A PC is defined, in the 3.5e PHB (p. 311), as "A character controlled by a player other than the Dungeon Master, as opposed to a non-player character." I have offered no suggestion to change away from this definition for PCs, and I have not stated or implied anything that can logically lead to a conclusion that some players' characters aren't PCs.

On the same page, an NPC is defined as "A character controlled by the Dungeon Master rather than by one of the pother players in a game session, as opposed to a player character."

These two definitions make DMPCs impossible (since of course DMPCs are a violation of RAW and RAI).

But we're talking about them. I was trying to make the distinction between a DMPC and an NPC. Pretending that I presented a distinction between PCs of different players, or that I defined some players' characters as not PCs, is simply an incorrect reading. My words did not say that, and no logical extension of them can lead to that.

I was talking about the difference between a DMPC and an NPC. I did not state or imply any difference between different PCs.


Some players may get annoyed if a DM bends the rules to "save" the player's character while another player may purposefully avoid mentioning a rule that they are aware of that would cause their character to die/lose/fail. Not to mention anything in between.

This is an obvious fact, which nobody here has denied. It also appears (to me, at least) to have no bearing on the ongoing discussion about DMPCs, and no relevance to the distinction I was drawing between DMPCs and NPCs.

If you wrote this intending to add to the discussion about DMPCs, then please explain the connection. I don't see it, and won't make a false guess about what you meant.

Thrudd
2017-06-11, 10:51 PM
I would agree, though I would put on certain conditions such as certain mechanics and such. For example, a player could have sole control on his wizard's familiar, that doesn't make the familiar a PC. Likewise, a player may have sole control of his character's, with the leadership feat, cohort. Again that doesn't make the cohort a PC.



As well as some possibly player controlled characters (familiars, cohorts, mounts, etc.).



Similarly if a player used inappropriate knowledge for the benefit of their PC, that would be also a problem. This is a game play problem, not a character problem.



And I would argue that a player that knows the rules perhaps better than a DM and does the same thing is a huge problem as well. A people involved in the game should probably equally invested in the honestly of the game.



Why is this a "bad sign"? Claims like this are stated as if they are self-evident. Honestly, it often seems in these discussions that people believe players are suppose to cheat and lie and do whatever they can to get their characters to "win" and it is the DM's responsibility to stop them. Thus if a DM is playing an effective "PC", they are obviously going to cheat and not stop themselves. Again, this doesn't seem a very flattering view of players.

How well someone knows the rules and whether or not they are cheating is not relevant to the topic. Your point about henchmen and familiars is completely besides the point as well, and you know it. Those are basically extensions of the PC's abilities. This is not about honesty in the players or the DM, it is about the very different role that the DM occupies in the game relative to the players. A DM's relationship to the NPCs is entirely different from the PC's relationship to their characters.

The DM literally designs the game that the players are playing - they create all the challenges and know what potentially lies around every corner. The players do not. The DM controls the monsters and enemies which are the primary obstacles for the players. The DM's role is to provide a challenging and exciting environment for play. It is pointless for a DM to pretend that they are facing the same challenges as the players, a DM that has NPCs play a major role in solving the game's challenges is depriving the players of the purpose for playing at all.

So, a DM's view of their NPCs is relevant. A DM cannot play in the same way the players do, it is impossible by the design of the game. They can't possess characters in the same way the players do. A DM can have NPCs be "effective" in the sense that they are competent in their abilities, they can role play personalities and motives, but there must always be the awareness that in order for the game to be a game, the players' decisions must be relevant, their choices having ultimate consequence. Having a great NPC ally that is always helping the players overcome challenges whenever they have trouble is as bad as having monsters that are always too tough for the players to defeat or having rocks fall and kill people whenever you don't like what is happening.

Before introducing an NPC ally, its effect on the players' decision making and upcoming challenges must be considered. The DM must carefully ensure no information is revealed through the character that would alter the players' decision making processes - make sure that during battles the character doesn't have too great an effect or obviate the players' tactics and strategies. Players, on the other hand, should be trying their best (obviously not to the point of lying and cheating) to defeat the obstacles and solve the problems and see their character survive to achieve their goals. The DM must play the NPCs and enemies with an even hand - with verisimilitude in mind and without overwhelming the players with impossible odds. A DM doesn't single-mindedly pursue the goals of the NPCs the way players do - they allow the denizens of the world to react according to rolls of the dice or according to pre-planned behavior patterns. They remain impartial, allowing the dice to tell them that an NPC is scared enough to flee from battle, even if the DM can see that it might not be the most tactically sound thing to do - or to tell them that an NPC accepts a proposition from the players that might obviously (to the DM) not be in that NPC's best interest.

pres_man
2017-06-11, 11:06 PM
Exactly. And the person running a PC should care if the PC runs into the trap. I certainly care whether my PC walks into the trap.

When playing I certain "care" if I am role-playing well, whether I am following the rules correctly (roll-playing well), making the game enjoyable for myself and the other players, and developing the story along with the other players. I am not overly concerned with the particular existence of my PC, it is a fictional character and I am not about to set my ethics to the side to keep such a character in play. I have no strong emotional investment in the character. If it falls in a trap, I might feel that it sucks, but I will toss the character sheet and roll up a new character. I am more likely to feel upset with the DM if I was not given proper chances based on the rules, then about actual death of the character. That is an issue of game play to me, not about the character.

Does that mean I don't "care" about the character? Possibly, by some people's definitions. I care just as much about playing and running the character well as I do for ogre barbarian #3.


That's what's wrong with the DM treating one specific NPC as his own PC. Either he treats the DMPC as a PC, by caring very much if he falls into the trap), or it's not a DMPC at all; it's a standard NPC, and the DM doesn't care if the NPC walks into the trap or not.

So we come again to your claim that if he treats it as a PC that is a problem, but you don't define what you mean by "treat it as a PC". You depend upon assumptions that the reader is suppose to have. The only reference you have given is "caring" about the character. So when I said:
"So if I am a player and I have a character that I am playing and I don't have the same level of emotional investment than someone else has in their character, then my character is not actually a PC?"

I was referencing your phrase to "treat it as a PC" to be based on caring (i.e. emotional investment).

I believe how much someone cares about a character is a poor way to define if a character is being "treated as a PC" or not, because there is no way to define that in a way that would describe how every player feels about their character.


A DM cannot play in the same way the players do, it is impossible by the design of the game. They can't possess characters in the same way the players do.


To be clear, I would never argue the experience that a GM running a Party Ally has is the same as the experience that a non-GM running a PC. Of course, the experience a veteran player has is going to be different from the experience a novice is going to have, so I don't think the actual experience needs to be the same. I don't define a "GMPC" based on the emotional or subjective experience of the person controlling it, merely on its mechanics and function within the game setting.

Again, I am talking about how characters are run, not on the subjective experience of the people playing the game.

Thrudd
2017-06-11, 11:45 PM
I also want to point out that the very term DMPC makes no sense. A Dungeon Master Player Character cannot exist. If you are the Dungeon Master, you cannot simultaneously be a Player, a character is either a Dungeon/Game Master Character (aka Non-Player Character), or it is a Player Character.

The use of the acronym DMPC implies a fundamental misunderstanding of how these games work, and reveals a potential conflict of interest in the DM that presages a game potentially lacking in player agency. As the DM, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Commit to being the DM, or be a player and let someone else be the DM.

People seem to be using the term to mean an NPC that is allied with the PCs and accompanies them as a companion. But the term "dungeon master player character" doesn't actually mean that, it is an oxymoron. It's like saying my pet is a dogcat. That is an impossibility (this isn't the isle of dr moreau). it's a dog or it's a cat. or a parakeet. but it can't be all of those things at once.

A better term might be "non-player companion character" NPCC, or "dungeon master ally character" DMAC, if you insist on using a different term for an NPC that hangs around with the party. Or something similar that actually has an appropriate, non-self-contradictory meaning.

The Insanity
2017-06-12, 01:18 AM
DMs are players too tho.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-12, 02:15 AM
DMs are players too tho.

Only in the sense that they are also playing the game. There is small-p player, which describes everyone participating in the game.

This is talking about big-P Player, which is a specific subset of game participants that excludes the GM.

ErebusVonMori
2017-06-12, 04:58 AM
And, even if the DM is perfect, the players might not be. A lot of players are resentful of DMPCs and see DM favoritism even when it isn't there. And just one player with a suspicious attitude can turn the entire group toxic.



Very much this, when you DM a game you're also playing with all the neurosis previous DMs left them with. I know a player who's first action entering a room is to always check the ceiling. Me, I kill DMPCs, it's one reason I play evil characters so I can justify killing a DMPC at the first opportunity, that probably says bad things about me, but it says just as much about the DMs that left me with that quirk.

That a DMPC has given me a game so bad that I now build into every character the option to kill it with minimal cognitive dissonance.

And that's one reason DMPCs are bad, cause bad DMing leads to bad (paranoid) players.

Now that's not actually because DMPCs are bad, but because they're usually paired with railroading, and killing the DMPC is an easy way to smash the rails (in my experience)

Elderand
2017-06-12, 07:31 AM
It occurs to me, slightly humorously, that any character accompanying the party that is portrayed by the DM lives in a kind of quantum state
The wavefunction collapses into a DMPC if it's observed to be problematic, if not then it's just a helpful NPC

Jay R
2017-06-12, 07:42 AM
I have said that DMPCs are character that a DM treats like a PC. Pres_man keeps trying to take that somewhere I didn't take tit, to claim I said or implied things I did not say or imply.


When playing I certain "care" if I am role-playing well, whether I am following the rules correctly (roll-playing well), making the game enjoyable for myself and the other players, and developing the story along with the other players. I am not overly concerned with the particular existence of my PC, it is a fictional character and I am not about to set my ethics to the side to keep such a character in play. I have no strong emotional investment in the character. If it falls in a trap, I might feel that it sucks, but I will toss the character sheet and roll up a new character. I am more likely to feel upset with the DM if I was not given proper chances based on the rules, then about actual death of the character. That is an issue of game play to me, not about the character.

And in your example above, you clearly care about your PC, in a way you do not care about an NPC. If a random NPC falls into the trap, you will not "feel upset with the DM if I was not given proper chances based on the rules".

The presence of the word "I" in that quote is exactly what I mean. If a NPC fell into the trap, you might the think DM was wrong, but you would not worry "if I was not given proper chances based on the rules" (emphasis added).


Does that mean I don't "care" about the character? Possibly, by some people's definitions.

Not by mine. Nothing I wrote or implied says that.


So we come again to your claim that if he treats it as a PC that is a problem, but you don't define what you mean by "treat it as a PC". You depend upon assumptions that the reader is suppose to have.

Yes. Yes, I do. I assume all readers in this thread have played the game, and know how they treat their PCs.

I specifically and exactly depend upon the readers' experiences.


I believe how much someone cares about a character is a poor way to define if a character is being "treated as a PC" or not, because there is no way to define that in a way that would describe how every player feels about their character.

Meanwhile, back in my discussion, how the DM cares about a character is still the best way to define the difference between a DMPC and a NPC.

And it's not "how much" someone cares. It's the way someone cares. The DM may have more interest in a really well-developed NPC. As long as she doesn't identify with the character, the way most people identify with their PCs, it's not a problem. But when something bad happens to the character, she should not think about is as "I", the way you did in the quote above.

I agree with your statement that different players treat their PCs differently. In fact, I never denied it. But still, identifying with a single character, and treating how that character does as the measure of how well you have done in the game, is correct behavior for PCs, and a conflict of interest for DMs.

Tanarii
2017-06-12, 08:51 AM
Me, I kill DMPCs, it's one reason I play evil characters so I can justify killing a DMPC at the first opportunity, that probably says bad things about me, Nah. It says all sorts of good things about you.


And that's one reason DMPCs are bad, cause bad DMing leads to bad (paranoid) players.Disagree. Paranoid players are the best players. And it takes very good DMing to get them there. That player that always checks the ceiling has learned gygaxian 'player skill', and it took a very good DM to instill it in him. And all of this is True ... as long as you're playing in a gygaxian style game.

of course, if he goes into a non-gygaxian style game that doesn't require gygaxian player skill, he's just slowing down the game. Different styles of game require different 'Good DM' skills and different 'player skill' skills. :smallamused:

Jay R
2017-06-12, 09:05 AM
DMs are players too tho.

Yes, the word "player", like most English words, can be used in many different ways, depending on context. In the context of the term "player-character", defined in the 3.5e rules as a character not run by the Dungeon Master, and the term "non-player character", meaning a character who is played by the Dungeon Master, the word "player" clearly and unambiguously means somebody other than the DM.

But I don't care if we use the word "player" or not. Since it's either confusing you or bothering you, let's get rid of it. Let's call the person running the game a "Woozle", and everybody who is playing a single character in the game as "Heffalumps".

In that case, a "Heffalump Character" is a character run by one of the Heffalumps, and a "Non-Heffalump Character" is a character played by the Woozle.

And therefore a Woozle Heffalump Character is a contradiction in terms. That was Thrudd's point.

pres_man
2017-06-12, 09:38 AM
And in your example above, you clearly care about your PC, in a way you do not care about an NPC. If a random NPC falls into the trap, you will not "feel upset with the DM if I was not given proper chances based on the rules".

The presence of the word "I" in that quote is exactly what I mean. If a NPC fell into the trap, you might the think DM was wrong, but you would not worry "if I was not given proper chances based on the rules" (emphasis added).

LOL. Seriously, how am I suppose to talk about playing a character and avoid using the word "I". If I happened to be responsible for running the NPC in question (perhaps the DM is not interested in running a follower for example), I would also word it in the same way. Because the character doesn't make rolls, the person running the character does. And if that person running it is me, then of course I am going to say "...I was not given ...". You're stretching here.


I also want to point out that the very term DMPC makes no sense. A Dungeon Master Player Character cannot exist. If you are the Dungeon Master, you cannot simultaneously be a Player, a character is either a Dungeon/Game Master Character (aka Non-Player Character), or it is a Player Character.

I agree, in a purely technical sense the phrase doesn't make sense, like Jumbo Shrimp and other oxymoronic phrases.


The use of the acronym DMPC implies a fundamental misunderstanding of how these games work, and reveals a potential conflict of interest in the DM that presages a game potentially lacking in player agency. As the DM, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Commit to being the DM, or be a player and let someone else be the DM.

People seem to be using the term to mean an NPC that is allied with the PCs and accompanies them as a companion. But the term "dungeon master player character" doesn't actually mean that, it is an oxymoron.

Well just like how you CAN have jumbo shrimp, the phrase can have meaning. Oxymoronic phrases are still valid phrases, they just don't make sense in a technical or superficial sense. I tend to use DMPC as short hand for "A DM run character that is a member of an adventuring party and functions within the party in an equivalent fashion as player run PCs. This is a special type of NPC ally." I hope you see how this greatly reduced the amount that needs to be said, hence the entire point of acronyms.


A better term might be "non-player companion character" NPCC, or "dungeon master ally character" DMAC, if you insist on using a different term for an NPC that hangs around with the party. Or something similar that actually has an appropriate, non-self-contradictory meaning.

Generally if people get too frustrated with the term I just go with "party ally".

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-12, 09:40 AM
As a GM, I've never used "I" when speaking of an NPC's actions, decisions, etc. NPCs aren't really first-person, they're third person.

pres_man
2017-06-12, 09:50 AM
As a GM, I've never used "I" when speaking of an NPC's actions, decisions, etc. NPCs aren't really first-person, they're third person.

Right, but have you ever used it when describing your actions as the person running the NPCs. "I rolled behind the screen", for example?

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-12, 10:06 AM
Right, but have you ever used it when describing your actions as the person running the NPCs. "I rolled behind the screen", for example?


Not really the same thing, as it's a reference to the actions taken by the GM as a person taking part in the game -- not the actions taken by the character as described and played out during the game -- and at least for your example it's not something that would often be said during the game; if it were said, it would be said in past-tense, in talking about the game afterwards. As a GM, I'd always use the latter to describe the actions of an NPC.

"I rolled the dice" is not the same as "I tried to shoot the thief before he could get away".

As far as I can tell, what Jay R is talking about is the difference between "I try to stab you", and "Rodolfo tries to stab you". Note that he uses the word "identify". In general, players tend to identify with their PCs in a way that GMs don't tend identify with NPCs -- when a GM starts to identify with a particular NPC in the way that players tend to identify with their PCs, that's when you get the GMPC. They take the success and failure of that character personally, in the way that players tend to take the success and failure of their PC personally.

(As an aside, this touches on one of the reasons I can't get into some other RPG approaches... I can't treat my PC as a plastic playing piece to be replaced with another piece, and I can't treat my PCs as story contrivances that exist to tell a particular story or fill a narrative role.)

kyoryu
2017-06-12, 12:39 PM
Similarly, saying the DM is on the same team is using the word "team" wrongly. The DM is running the opposing team. She is also running all the allies. And all neutral parties. And also making rulings about the rules and about what happens.

Yes, the DM is trying to run a fair and entertaining game for her friends, and trying to make it a compelling story. She should design the encounters so the players have every reasonable chance to win. The enjoyment of the players should be her goal. But that's not what "same team" means.

Shamelessly stole from Apocalypse World, the GM should be a fan of the characters.

This does not mean that they give the characters everything. Far from it. I'm a fan of the Dresden Files, and of Harry Dresden. As a fan, the last thing in the world that I want is for Harry's life to be easy. Because that would be boring.

I want to see Harry get stuck in the deepest, darkest, blackest pit he can - and find a way to crawl out of it.

Quertus
2017-06-12, 02:51 PM
I'm only on page 2, so some of this may have been covered.

What is a DMPC? A PC, run by the DM. This is most obvious when you have a rotating DM, and the DM keeps running their charter.

-----

Some have claimed that the problem with the concept of the DMPC is that there is no way for the DM to keep character and DM knowledge separate. Well, yes, there are plenty of DMs who lack even that basic skill at role-playing. They are why I prefer the DM to write up the entire adventure in advance, and run it like a module. They are why I prefer to give the DM as little information about my character as possible.

However, those of us who actually roleplay in a role-playing game know that keeping player and character knowledge separate is kinda one of the fundamental building blocks of role-playing. For us, doing so as DM is fundamentally no different than doing so as a player.

Of course, that's not to say that we're perfect - heck, I don't even roleplay myself 100% perfectly when I play myself in an RPG. So, most good roleplayers would prefer not to have extra knowledge their characters don't have, if they prioritize role-playing. Thus, DMs who grok the concept of role-playing have generally been easy to sway to my "PC as black box" style of gaming.

So, no, having extra knowledge doesn't inherently make a DMPC bad - combining extra knowledge with a DM who is bad at role-playing, does.

-----

There's been talk that the problem with the DMPC is that he takes focus away from the PCs. While this is true, let's evaluate that.

1) If there are X PCs sharing the spotlight evenly, and you add in a DMPC who takes an equal share of the spotlight, each PC gets less time in the spotlight. That's true. However, the math would be exactly the same if, instead, you added in another PC. So this is in no way an argument against adding a DMPC - it's an argument against adding a PC, regardless of who is controlling it.

2) Alternately, the problem could be that the DMPC is getting an unfair share of the spotlight time. That's a problem, but it's generally called "DM favoritism", and is independent of the existence of DMPCs.

3) Or, the problem could be that you take issue with the fact that it is the DM who is getting the attention. Look, being a DM is a pretty thankless job. If you're problem is that the DM is having fun, I suggest you go home and rethink your life.

So, in short, I'm failing to see how this could be construed as a DMPC issue.

-----

Some have suggested that the DMPC should use different rules than the PCs. Um, NJNHN? Using the same rules is one of the things that keeps a DMPC in line with the party - remove that, and, not only will bad DMs get worse, but even good DMs may start to favor their character unfairly, entirely by accident, because they weren't paying enough attention.

-----


Let one (or all) of the players run two characters in that case.

I heartily endorse this idea. Unfortunately, not everyone can manage one character, let alone multiple.


But this one brute fact remains: A DMPC is a PC played by a player who has read all the DM's notes.

Funny story: we had a party all ready to run through a module, then the DM bailed at the last minute.

I agreed to run the module. But I kept my character as a DMPC. My first (of many) read through the module, I read through it as my character, constantly asking, WWQD?

So, when I actually ran the module, I roleplayed my character true to form. The players had quite the shocked looks on their faces when my character ticked off the quest giver, and was kicked out before the adventure even began. :smalltongue:

He came back later, because he actually had a reason to be there, but no-one had any doubts as to whether I was the type of DM to manipulate my superior knowledge to my character's advantage.

So, even that isn't a guaranteed issue with a DMPC.

-----

Now, there are potential issues with DMPCs, even under good DMs, but they're generally more subtle, more insidious, and all but impossible to do anything about. Problems that almost certainly every one of my DMPCs is guilty of. When I actually catch up with this thread, I'll go into what those are, if they haven't been covered already.

But, I keep running DMPCs in some of my games, because, at the end of the day, what matters is whether those problems are a problem for your group. What matters is whether your group is having fun.

obryn
2017-06-12, 03:17 PM
Dude, this is a series of (apparently) willful distortions of other peoples' arguments. It's a bad post.


Some have claimed that the problem with the concept of the DMPC is that there is no way for the DM to keep character and DM knowledge separate. Well, yes, there are plenty of DMs who lack even that basic skill at role-playing. They are why I prefer the DM to write up the entire adventure in advance, and run it like a module. They are why I prefer to give the DM as little information about my character as possible.

However, those of us who actually roleplay in a role-playing game know that keeping player and character knowledge separate is kinda one of the fundamental building blocks of role-playing. For us, doing so as DM is fundamentally no different than doing so as a player.
Not quite. It's a knowledge of both the setup, and the consequences. A DM can't play a character blind to the outcome of that character's actions. Players can. DMs can certainly answer, "What would this NPC do?" but they cannot answer "What will the consequences be?" with a shrug.


1) If there are X PCs sharing the spotlight evenly, and you add in a DMPC who takes an equal share of the spotlight, each PC gets less time in the spotlight. That's true. However, the math would be exactly the same if, instead, you added in another PC. So this is in no way an argument against adding a DMPC - it's an argument against adding a PC, regardless of who is controlling it.
No, if you add another player, the players are still getting (collectively) 100% of the spotlight time. The DM doesn't need any more spotlight time. They are the DM.


3) Or, the problem could be that you take issue with the fact that it is the DM who is getting the attention. Look, being a DM is a pretty thankless job. If you're problem is that the DM is having fun, I suggest you go home and rethink your life.
Come on now. That's an absurd argument that nobody is making. And if you think the job of DM is thankless, I just don't know what to tell you. I find it incredibly rewarding.


Some have suggested that the DMPC should use different rules than the PCs. Um, NJNHN? Using the same rules is one of the things that keeps a DMPC in line with the party - remove that, and, not only will bad DMs get worse, but even good DMs may start to favor their character unfairly, entirely by accident, because they weren't paying enough attention.
No; the suggestion is to use simpler rules for companion characters, such that the players can run them while also running their own characters. The barest-bones approach would be an NPC who can throw out a healing spell of some sort 1/encounter, an NPC who will give bonuses on certain kinds of skill checks, or an NPC who will give defensive bonuses to any ally adjacent to them. In no case is this a suggestion for DMPCs; the point is not to have DMPCs.


So, when I actually ran the module, I roleplayed my character true to form. The players had quite the shocked looks on their faces when my character ticked off the quest giver, and was kicked out before the adventure even began. :smalltongue:

He came back later, because he actually had a reason to be there, but no-one had any doubts as to whether I was the type of DM to manipulate my superior knowledge to my character's advantage.

So, even that isn't a guaranteed issue with a DMPC.
So your players got to watch as you railroaded them into certain consequences by mucking up their interactions with an NPC. Okay.

Mr Blobby
2017-06-12, 03:28 PM
The problem is that 'DMPC' has two definitions [in my opinion]:

#1: An NPC who keeps on popping up enough that they are PC quality in their own right. [They have opinions, hobbies, goals etc]

#2: A situation where the DM uses an NPC to derail / railroad their own story and/or become the star of it.

For me as a DM, I do #1 all the time. I've had them tag along on missions, offer advice etc when it was realistic that they would. Pretty much I put in NPC backups which PC's could 'hire' - normally if the party was lacking say a wizard / thief / whatever due to a player's no-show. But I don't move into #2 [I hope] - I respect that they're not the star[s], everything is rolled and they're not infallible.

But I think the biggest sign of a #2 DMPC is that the DM *will not* let them fail or die. Novels have the similar 'Mary Sue' problem, and I follow the similar advice for DMPC's that an author [can't remember who] gave about Sues: 'Kill your babies'.

I've had many DMPC's die in nasty ways - from traps, explosions, mis-firing spells and one fun time where one DMPC botched and put a crossbow bolt into the other DMPC's head, killing them instantly.

hamishspence
2017-06-12, 05:09 PM
But I think the biggest sign of a #2 DMPC is that the DM *will not* let them fail or die. Novels have the similar 'Mary Sue' problem, and I follow the similar advice for DMPC's that an author [can't remember who] gave about Sues: 'Kill your babies'.


William Faulkner is one name I've seen given - another was Arthur Quiller-Couch, another was Stephen King - - none of them were talking about characters, but about sections of writing that the writer thinks are great, but are also unnecessary - padding - detrimental to the story as a whole.

https://sterlingandstone.net/murder-darlings-mean/

Jay R
2017-06-12, 05:11 PM
LOL. Seriously, how am I suppose to talk about playing a character and avoid using the word "I".

Of course you'll say "I". That's a direct consequence of the connection I was referring to, and which you denied existed.

DMs don't have that connection to NPCs, and don't say, "I".

Player: I attack the ogre. [Rolls dice. Resolves attack]
DM: The ogre takes 14 points of damage. Now it attacks you.


If I happened to be responsible for running the NPC in question (perhaps the DM is not interested in running a follower for example), I would also word it in the same way. Because the character doesn't make rolls, the person running the character does. And if that person running it is me, then of course I am going to say "...I was not given ...". You're stretching here.

I'm not stretching; I'm reporting what I've seen. The DMs rarely say "I" referring to NPCs, and players almost always do. The only times I can remember seeing a DM say "I" referring to a character he was running, that character was his DMPC.

Mr Blobby
2017-06-12, 05:17 PM
Could be... but I took it to mean writers, however much they might like character X shouldn't be scared to fail, maim or even kill them if that's how the story turns out [I follow the belief that most writers end up with the characters taking a life of their own and kinda complain to the writer if they make them act out of character].

At least that's how I read it, and the rule I always follow with NPC's - just because I really like you, doesn't mean you're immortal. Even if you technically are.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-12, 05:26 PM
William Faulkner is one name I've seen given - another was Arthur Quiller-Couch, another was Stephen King - - none of them were talking about characters, but about sections of writing that the writer thinks are great, but are also unnecessary - padding - detrimental to the story as a whole.

https://sterlingandstone.net/murder-darlings-mean/


Yeap -- "Kill your darlings" has NOTHING to do with the phantom "problem" of "Mary Sues", and EVERYTHING to do with advising writers to be ruthless in cutting out that turn of phrase or entire dialogue or twisty sideplot that they love but that doesn't work in that story.

Mr Blobby
2017-06-12, 05:32 PM
Well, couldn't it mean both - both cutting flab and dealing with your love for your avatar or Sue? After all, they are two aspects of the same problem: the writer in love with things which are ultimately detrimental to the book.

Or perhaps it's the various Urban Fantasy novels full of female avatars/Sues which *really* get my goat which has made me see said advice in this direction?

Quertus
2017-06-12, 05:44 PM
Dude, this is a series of (apparently) willful distortions of other peoples' arguments. It's a bad post.

No, if you add another player, the players are still getting (collectively) 100% of the spotlight time. The DM doesn't need any more spotlight time. They are the DM.

Come on now. That's an absurd argument that nobody is making. And if you think the job of DM is thankless, I just don't know what to tell you. I find it incredibly rewarding.

So your players got to watch as you railroaded them into certain consequences by mucking up their interactions with an NPC. Okay.

If no-one is saying what I thought they were saying, well, sweet! Although I may need to check my meds...

No, more seriously, sorry if I misrepresented anyone's (or even everyone's) positions, but that's what I read people to have said.

I am confused that it seems like you are yourself making the argument you claim no-one is making. Care to step me through this one, how the DM doesn't need more focus, but no-one is complaining about DMPCs as a source of spotlight time for the DM?

And, the module I ran was full of **** NPCs. Run straight out of the module, when one of the NPCs commented that it was the least they could do, the party responded that they were absolutely correct. Yeah.

So, what my DMPC did was demonstrate to the party exactly which type of **** the quest giver was. He provided useful information which they could then use to better determine their approach in dealing with him. There was nothing remotely resembling railroading them into certain consequences - quite the opposite, in fact.

Unless, of course, you're trying to willfully distort my argument. :smalltongue:

Dragonexx
2017-06-12, 05:51 PM
This thread has become full of no true scotsman arguements.

pres_man
2017-06-12, 05:52 PM
Of course you'll say "I". That's a direct consequence of the connection I was referring to, and which you denied existed.

DMs don't have that connection to NPCs, and don't say, "I".

Player: I attack the ogre. [Rolls dice. Resolves attack]
DM: The ogre takes 14 points of damage. Now it attacks you.

I'm not stretching; I'm reporting what I've seen. The DMs rarely say "I" referring to NPCs, and players almost always do. The only times I can remember seeing a DM say "I" referring to a character he was running, that character was his DMPC.

Except that was not the context I was using the word in. It was more of:
DM: Your character falls into a trap and dies.
Player: Don't I get to roll a reflex save?

See, the player is referring to themselves because rolling is a player action, not a character action. I guess someone could talk about themselves in the third person, but unless you are Bob Dole that comes across kind of strange.

Psikerlord
2017-06-12, 06:29 PM
What's a DM PC?
It's a mistake, 99% of the time. In a recent star wars game however our GM played the wookie heavy (non-speaking) as a party member, and it worked sweet.

obryn
2017-06-12, 06:57 PM
I am confused that it seems like you are yourself making the argument you claim no-one is making. Care to step me through this one, how the DM doesn't need more focus, but no-one is complaining about DMPCs as a source of spotlight time for the DM?
I don't understand the thrust of your argument, here. You were arguing that reducing each individual player's spotlight by adding an additional player was equivalent to reducing each player's spotlight by adding a DMPC. I am saying these are not remotely the same.


And, the module I ran was full of **** NPCs. Run straight out of the module, when one of the NPCs commented that it was the least they could do, the party responded that they were absolutely correct. Yeah.

So, what my DMPC did was demonstrate to the party exactly which type of **** the quest giver was. He provided useful information which they could then use to better determine their approach in dealing with him. There was nothing remotely resembling railroading them into certain consequences - quite the opposite, in fact.

Unless, of course, you're trying to willfully distort my argument. :smalltongue:
OK, I have no idea what the ****'s are replacing. I am coming up with alternatives, but none makes sense in context.

And yes, the DMPC made decisions that should be the players' decisions to make. I see little difference between something happening because a DMPC made it happen, and railroading. Again, you know both the setup and the consequences. There is no mystery; the consequences are known. You knew what the NPC quest-giver would do and say.

Jay R
2017-06-12, 08:30 PM
Except that was not the context I was using the word in. It was more of:
DM: Your character falls into a trap and dies.
Player: Don't I get to roll a reflex save?

Yup. Compare to:

DM: The NPC falls into a trap and dies. Oh, wait, he gets a reflex save. Where's my d20?

and

DM: My DMPC falls into a trap and dies. Oh, wait - I get a reflex save.

Talakeal
2017-06-12, 09:30 PM
Out of curiosity, how many people would object if one of their players was on his laptop raiding in World of Warcracft and playing D&D at the same time?

I bring it up because in my mind even if done perfectly, the DM is still trying to play two fundamentally games at the same time, which requires some serious multi-tasking. And, according to all the psychological studies I have seen, no one can multitask without their performance suffering, people who believe they can are merely better at deluding themselves.

RazorChain
2017-06-12, 10:05 PM
I also want to point out that the very term DMPC makes no sense. A Dungeon Master Player Character cannot exist. If you are the Dungeon Master, you cannot simultaneously be a Player, a character is either a Dungeon/Game Master Character (aka Non-Player Character), or it is a Player Character.

The use of the acronym DMPC implies a fundamental misunderstanding of how these games work, and reveals a potential conflict of interest in the DM that presages a game potentially lacking in player agency. As the DM, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Commit to being the DM, or be a player and let someone else be the DM.

People seem to be using the term to mean an NPC that is allied with the PCs and accompanies them as a companion. But the term "dungeon master player character" doesn't actually mean that, it is an oxymoron. It's like saying my pet is a dogcat. That is an impossibility (this isn't the isle of dr moreau). it's a dog or it's a cat. or a parakeet. but it can't be all of those things at once.

A better term might be "non-player companion character" NPCC, or "dungeon master ally character" DMAC, if you insist on using a different term for an NPC that hangs around with the party. Or something similar that actually has an appropriate, non-self-contradictory meaning.

This is the problem, DMPC makes no sense but still they exist, not as allies or companions but as a player character run by the Dungeon Master.

There are actually Dungeon Masters that make a character and put the character with the party. Then the DM proceeds to play that character as their character. Not only have I played with a DM that did this but I also know other people who have played with such DM's. And no this wasn't a game with rotating DM's where his PC was present.

The problem I experienced was that the DMPC was blatantly awesome and clearly not bound by the same character creation rules as the PC's.

That is what an DMPC is and what differentiates from a normal NPC. When you create a PC to partake in a game you think this is MY character, it's an extension of my ego, my beliefs, a make believe power fantasy version of myself, I'm going to do awesome stuff in the game with this MY character. Now if the DM does the same thing and forces that character on the group then you have a DMPC.

Knaight
2017-06-12, 10:27 PM
I bring it up because in my mind even if done perfectly, the DM is still trying to play two fundamentally games at the same time, which requires some serious multi-tasking. And, according to all the psychological studies I have seen, no one can multitask without their performance suffering, people who believe they can are merely better at deluding themselves.

I can see where you're going with this, but there's a huge difference between running an NPC a lot in one game (which is fundamentally what a DMPC is) and running two different games simultaneously. It's really not an even comparison.

kyoryu
2017-06-13, 01:42 AM
That is what an DMPC is and what differentiates from a normal NPC. When you create a PC to partake in a game you think this is MY character, it's an extension of my ego, my beliefs, a make believe power fantasy version of myself, I'm going to do awesome stuff in the game with this MY character. Now if the DM does the same thing and forces that character on the group then you have a DMPC.

It's really not a hard concept, until people start trying to get all twisty with it.

Again, the concept is straightforward. Whether it's a good idea or not is a separate discussion.

pres_man
2017-06-13, 07:41 AM
DM: Everyone make a 1st level character, roll 4 drop 1, standard starting wealth, etc. Except for you Mark. You get to start at 10th level with 18 in all stats, any templates and races with no LA. Also you can have as many artifacts you want Mark.

non-Mark players: WTF?

DM: What? His character is just a PC, so it is cool.

Mark:
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a7/a7e528a2b40906ecf3424e2803c1bd2d2b010f37f6ce08119f f6bd51f7f04df6.jpg

While in a technical sense, Mark's overpowered game-breaking character is a PC, since it is played by a person that is not the DM, in a more realistic sense I don't think most other players in the game would view it as such. Character's that don't follow standard rules for player character creation (race/class choices, ability generation, wealth, level, etc) I don't believe should be thought of as a PC.

Quertus
2017-06-13, 08:04 AM
I don't understand the thrust of your argument, here. You were arguing that reducing each individual player's spotlight by adding an additional player was equivalent to reducing each player's spotlight by adding a DMPC. I am saying these are not remotely the same.

The thrust of my argument is that, if the each player's spotlight time gets reduced from 36 minutes to 30 minutes, what difference does it make if that reduction is due to the addition of a PC, or a DMPC? I'm contending that they are equivalent, thus, it is no more an issue for a DMPC than any other type of PC.


OK, I have no idea what the ****'s are replacing. I am coming up with alternatives, but none makes sense in context.

And yes, the DMPC made decisions that should be the players' decisions to make. I see little difference between something happening because a DMPC made it happen, and railroading. Again, you know both the setup and the consequences. There is no mystery; the consequences are known. You knew what the NPC quest-giver would do and say.

I, OTOH, can think if several words which fit just fine, but let's just go with "jerk".

Funny story - I didn't know the consequences when I chose the action. See, this particular course of action was decided back when the original DM was describing the module to us. In fact, because I told the DM that was how my character would react, it's entirely possible that the DM realized the incompatibility between my charter and these jerks, and stepped down for just that reason.

So, when the quest giver was trying to give a quest to a bunch of people who had never met before, my character responded in character, and the quest giver booted him. Thus, the party, having already dealt with several jerk NPCs in the module, learned just which type of jerk the quest giver was, and adjusted their strategy accordingly. Good times all around.

Yes, I knew as DM what would happen. My character was just as surprised as the other characters and the players were.

So, the only things I "railroaded" were additional information to the party, and the (temporary) removal of my DMPC. I'm really not seeing the problem here. What choice did I make which should have belonged in the players' hands?

obryn
2017-06-13, 08:06 AM
While in a technical sense, Mark's overpowered game-breaking character is a PC, since it is played by a person that is not the DM, in a more realistic sense I don't think most other players in the game would view it as such. Character's that don't follow standard rules for player character creation (race/class choices, ability generation, wealth, level, etc) I don't believe should be thought of as a PC.
I don't see how this relates to any of the other arguments laid out here.

obryn
2017-06-13, 08:16 AM
The thrust of my argument is that, if the each player's spotlight time gets reduced from 36 minutes to 30 minutes, what difference does it make if that reduction is due to the addition of a PC, or a DMPC? I'm contending that they are equivalent, thus, it is no more an issue for a DMPC than any other type of PC.
Of course it's a difference. There is a difference between DMs and players. It's not about what any individual player can lay claim to; it's about keeping that spotlight firmly on the players, collectively. The DM has plenty of spotlight time as it is, running the game.


I, OTOH, can think if several words which fit just fine, but let's just go with "jerk".

Funny story - I didn't know the consequences when I chose the action. See, this particular course of action was decided back when the original DM was describing the module to us. In fact, because I told the DM that was how my character would react, it's entirely possible that the DM realized the incompatibility between my charter and these jerks, and stepped down for just that reason.

So, when the quest giver was trying to give a quest to a bunch of people who had never met before, my character responded in character, and the quest giver booted him. Thus, the party, having already dealt with several jerk NPCs in the module, learned just which type of jerk the quest giver was, and adjusted their strategy accordingly. Good times all around.

Yes, I knew as DM what would happen. My character was just as surprised as the other characters and the players were.

So, the only things I "railroaded" were additional information to the party, and the (temporary) removal of my DMPC. I'm really not seeing the problem here. What choice did I make which should have belonged in the players' hands?
None of this was a process of discovery. You were not playing the character to find out what happened; you were playing the character with the foreknowledge of exactly what would happen. By running the game, you ensured events would happen that involved your DMPC.

Quertus
2017-06-13, 08:50 AM
I've made it through page 3 now.


What a lot of the perceived dangers fundamentally has to do with what the posters beliefs on the roles a player should have. Things like min/maxing their characters, hogging as much stage time as possible, sacrificing the spirit of the rules for any personal advantage, demanding that all game story aspects be about their characters, and demanding that treasure be tweaked for their benefit.

Honestly, the worries about a DM playing a "PC" is often wrapped around a rather unflattering opinion as to what it means to be a player.

I couldn't agree more. If I had made it to page 3 before I started posting in this thread, I'd probably have phrased my comments as a restatement of this.


I've always had the philosophy that the GM is on the same team as the players... not the opposing team. Everyone is working together to make an entertaining story.


I've long thought that the GM should be neutral, rather than wanting anyone to "win", but concerned with the enjoyment of all persons involved.

Those who cannot comprehend this concept must horribly distrust all NPCs... since
they're all being run by the person who is "against" them.

I view the DM's job as "run the world". As such, running an NPC or a DMPC is just a natural part of the DM's job.


I have played in games running models that I have played before, but other players have not. Heck, I've played in games where I myself ran the model before.

Somehow, I have been able to compartmentalize this knowledge from what my character knows.

Role-playing 101. :smallwink:

Although this might actually require a higher level course...


Of course it's a difference. There is a difference between DMs and players. It's not about what any individual player can lay claim to; it's about keeping that spotlight firmly on the players, collectively. The DM has plenty of spotlight time as it is, running the game.

So, by making that argument, you agree now that someone is making that argument, right?


None of this was a process of discovery. You were not playing the character to find out what happened; you were playing the character with the foreknowledge of exactly what would happen. By running the game, you ensured events would happen that involved your DMPC.

And your point is... ?

And I didn't ensure anything. Another PC could have grabbed my arm, and shouted or whispered in my ear something along the lines of, "can it you idiot! Haven't you noticed that everyone we've met has been a total jerk? Best just to nod and smile on this railroad than open your mouth and risk triggering the locals' insanity."

But that didn't happen, so events continued along their logical course. Exactly the same way they do when I'm running a sandbox instead of a module.

obryn
2017-06-13, 09:03 AM
So, by making that argument, you agree now that someone is making that argument, right?
Please tell me that you can understand the difference between...

3) Or, the problem could be that you take issue with the fact that it is the DM who is getting the attention. Look, being a DM is a pretty thankless job. If you're problem is that the DM is having fun, I suggest you go home and rethink your life.
...and...

Of course it's a difference. There is a difference between DMs and players. It's not about what any individual player can lay claim to; it's about keeping that spotlight firmly on the players, collectively. The DM has plenty of spotlight time as it is, running the game.
Because for real, these are not even close.

I will say that if you do not find the process of DMing rewarding in and of itself, without running a DMPC, you should probably see if anyone else wants to sit in the DM seat.


And your point is... ?
My point is that all the talk about "my character was surpised" is different from "the player was surprised."

It keeps getting lost but - do you encourage your players to read your adventure notes before the game starts? If not, why not?

I am guessing it's because that's the whole point of the game - playing to find out what happens. This is not about the characters finding out what happens. It's about the players' role in that discovery. A DM running a DMPC is playing D&D with him or herself, and making the players watch.

pres_man
2017-06-13, 09:09 AM
I don't see how this relates to any of the other arguments laid out here.

It was in response to comments like:


The problem I experienced was that the DMPC was blatantly awesome and clearly not bound by the same character creation rules as the PC's.

I always find it strange to call a character that doesn't function the same as a PC and is run by a DM to be a DMPC. If players would have a hard time calling another person's character that was horribly broken as a true PC, why would we apply the term to a similarly broken character run by the DM?

obryn
2017-06-13, 09:17 AM
I always find it strange to call a character that doesn't function the same as a PC and is run by a DM to be a DMPC. If players would have a hard time calling another person's character that was horribly broken as a true PC, why would we apply the term to a similarly broken character run by the DM?
What you described is still a PC - because a player is running them as their character. This does not prevent it from being problematic in other ways.

pres_man
2017-06-13, 09:25 AM
What you described is still a PC - because a player is running them as their character. This does not prevent it from being problematic in other ways.

In a very technical sense, yes.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-13, 10:48 AM
I like how one of the arguments in favor of DMPCs essentially boils down to:
"I guess I just roleplay better than you."

Which is a BS argument for several reasons, that I will expound:

1. Based entirely on anecdotal evidence. We are all very aware that the vast majority of DMPCs that merit talking about cause bad things to happen in the games they are found it. Saying "yes but I did it right" does not change the underlying problem.

This is somewhat like if someone were to say "playing Russian Roulette is a good way to end up dead" and the response was "Yeah but I played it once and lived so it's clearly safe."


2. It does not address the inherent conflict of interest. For the same reason your doctor should not be your sole heir. Definitionally, a DMPC is a conflict of interest:

A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional interest or public interest.
DMPCs are this, several times.
In one case, the self-interest is the preservation of one's own character (PC), and the public interest is providing adequate challenge to all PC's.

There is similarly the conflict between being simultaneously the challenger and the challenged (in a general sense.)

There is also the conflict of being both referee and player. (The DM enforces the rules, do they not?)

Note that a conflict of interest need not guarantee impartiality. A conflict of interest is based on the POSSIBILITY of impartiality and is still a problem.

We would not allow a judge to rule his own case, would we? Even if he was the most impartial person in the world. Why? Because it is a conflict of interest. That is why I don't play with people who use DMPCs, no matter how much they assure me that they are going to do it "the right way." It is still a conflict of interest.

3. It's elitist bs.

I really shouldn't need to explain why "I guess I'm just a better roleplayer than you and that's why I get to ignore blatant conflicts of interest" is an elitist, snobby argument that will only serve to piss people off.

Not to mention we either have to tale your word for it or call you a liar when you just self-report your greatness. Which is why I'm going to be rude and say this:

Unless you have a recording of your DMPC'd session, I will assume it didn't actually happen and you're full of it. Doubly so if that's the core foundation of your argument. I'm mentally discarding anecdotes from both sides.

And before we go there, I have recordings of my sessions that I am willing to furnish should my argument be based on a thing I did in a session. But that has yet to happen in this thread.

I'll also note that no one satisfied the conflict of interest problem.

LibraryOgre
2017-06-13, 10:52 AM
DM: Everyone make a 1st level character, roll 4 drop 1, standard starting wealth, etc. Except for you Mark. You get to start at 10th level with 18 in all stats, any templates and races with no LA. Also you can have as many artifacts you want Mark.

non-Mark players: WTF?

DM: What? His character is just a PC, so it is cool.

Mark:
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a7/a7e528a2b40906ecf3424e2803c1bd2d2b010f37f6ce08119f f6bd51f7f04df6.jpg

While in a technical sense, Mark's overpowered game-breaking character is a PC, since it is played by a person that is not the DM, in a more realistic sense I don't think most other players in the game would view it as such. Character's that don't follow standard rules for player character creation (race/class choices, ability generation, wealth, level, etc) I don't believe should be thought of as a PC.

...am... am I being called out? :wink::biggrin:

Quertus
2017-06-13, 10:57 AM
Please tell me that you can understand the difference between...

...and...

Because for real, these are not even close.

I will say that if you do not find the process of DMing rewarding in and of itself, without running a DMPC, you should probably see if anyone else wants to sit in the DM seat.


My point is that all the talk about "my character was surpised" is different from "the player was surprised."

It keeps getting lost but - do you encourage your players to read your adventure notes before the game starts? If not, why not?

I am guessing it's because that's the whole point of the game - playing to find out what happens. This is not about the characters finding out what happens. It's about the players' role in that discovery. A DM running a DMPC is playing D&D with him or herself, and making the players watch.

Well, I agree with this in that Exploration and Discovery are my favorite parts of a game. And I suppose I therefore see why you consider the spotlight being shone on a DMPC different than or being shone on a PC. But, not everyone holds Exploration as the only possible point of the game. Not everyone calls a game that isn't focused on Exploration badwrongfun. As is evidenced by those who play the same module repeatedly with different characters.

So, for those who don't come from your school of "Exploration or badwrongfun", I see no difference in shining the spotlight on a DMPC vs adding in another player, and shining the spotlight on their PC.

I also agree that I heartily prefer to play, and try to hand off the mantle of GM whenever possible.

Fortunately, several of my groups do the whole "rotating DM" thing, so DMPCs are the standard in those groups, not the exception.

GungHo
2017-06-13, 11:07 AM
If a "DMPC" needs to exist for more than a session or two, I farm that character out to a player. I have no problem letting a player run two characters if those characters are helping round things out. I already have enough to do running the game itself.

Quertus
2017-06-13, 11:29 AM
I like how one of the arguments in favor of DMPCs essentially boils down to:
"I guess I just roleplay better than you."

Which is a BS argument for several reasons, that I will expound:

1. Based entirely on anecdotal evidence. We are all very aware that the vast majority of DMPCs that merit talking about cause bad things to happen in the games they are found it. Saying "yes but I did it right" does not change the underlying problem.

This is somewhat like if someone were to say "playing Russian Roulette is a good way to end up dead" and the response was "Yeah but I played it once and lived so it's clearly safe."


2. It does not address the inherent conflict of interest. For the same reason your doctor should not be your sole heir. Definitionally, a DMPC is a conflict of interest:

DMPCs are this, several times.
In one case, the self-interest is the preservation of one's own character (PC), and the public interest is providing adequate challenge to all PC's.

There is similarly the conflict between being simultaneously the challenger and the challenged (in a general sense.)

There is also the conflict of being both referee and player. (The DM enforces the rules, do they not?)

Note that a conflict of interest need not guarantee impartiality. A conflict of interest is based on the POSSIBILITY of impartiality and is still a problem.

We would not allow a judge to rule his own case, would we? Even if he was the most impartial person in the world. Why? Because it is a conflict of interest. That is why I don't play with people who use DMPCs, no matter how much they assure me that they are going to do it "the right way." It is still a conflict of interest.

3. It's elitist bs.

I really shouldn't need to explain why "I guess I'm just a better roleplayer than you and that's why I get to ignore blatant conflicts of interest" is an elitist, snobby argument that will only serve to piss people off.

Not to mention we either have to tale your word for it or call you a liar when you just self-report your greatness. Which is why I'm going to be rude and say this:

Unless you have a recording of your DMPC'd session, I will assume it didn't actually happen and you're full of it. Doubly so if that's the core foundation of your argument. I'm mentally discarding anecdotes from both sides.

And before we go there, I have recordings of my sessions that I am willing to furnish should my argument be based on a thing I did in a session. But that has yet to happen in this thread.

I'll also note that no one satisfied the conflict of interest problem.

Well, to the extent that this is directed at me, let me address how my position differs from what is described here.

First and foremost, it's not an argument for DMPCs, I am merely explaining why certain arguments against DMPCs don't hold water. I'm a good rules lawyer - whether I like DMPCs or not, I argue for truth in argument.

The position I was addressing was equivalent to "The problem with cars is that they all crash into trees". And my response was equivalent to saying, "knowing that cars belong on roads is one of the fundamentals of driving".

If you are seriously trying to say that you cannot conceptualize an NPC having a personality different from the DM being against the players, then, yes, I'll happily go on the record as saying that I roleplay better than you, and that that's just one of many problems I see. But I'd like to think that's not what you're saying, and, even if it is, if your group is having fun despite what is consider problematic, well, more power to you.

I don't view my role as GM as "challenger". As others have pointed out, if the GM's job is to run the world, or help everyone have fun, running a DMPC (or, heck, any given NPC) is no longer a conflict of interest, but simply an extension of their role. Personally, I'd argue that those who run through the same module repeatedly have more of a conflict of interest, yet they seem to have fun with what they find perfectly viable.

For those who do view the role of the GM as challenger, I can see how there would be issues, human nature being what it is. I happen to be able to be both developer and tester, so I actually am better at this type of distinction than most. :smalltongue:

But, sure, for the vast majority of humanity, if they view the DM's role as adversarial, they have a conflict of interest in running a DMPC. Sure. But that's not the only possibility. And all this talk about "conflict of interest" is completely irrelevant to the concept that the basics of role-playing are using character knowledge instead of player knowledge - something that those who holds that the DMPC has read the DM's notes seem to have ignored.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-13, 12:05 PM
I don't view my role as GM as "challenger". As others have pointed out, if the GM's job is to run the world, or help everyone have fun, running a DMPC (or, heck, any given NPC) is no longer a conflict of interest, but simply an extension of their role. Personally, I'd argue that those who run through the same module repeatedly have more of a conflict of interest, yet they seem to have fun with what they find perfectly viable.


So as a GM you don't challenge your players in any way?
I'm interested to know how such games work or what happens since the GM provides no challenge.

I don't understand the position of "the GM is not a challenger." Have you played D&D? D&D doesn't exactly do a great job of describing the DMs job but it at least makes it clear that you are supposed to put difficulties in the path of your players. Hell, monsters have a "Challenge Rating" as part of their stat block.

I can be the person who challenges and opposes my players' desires WITHOUT BEING ANTAGONISTIC TO MY PLAYERS. I want my players to overcome the challenges I bring forward. But they will come all the same.

Why do we keep equating "challenge" with "antagonize."

This argument is nonsensical and relies on blatant misinterpretation of what "challenges the players" means.

And even WITH this clarification, the conflict of interest remains.

Also, please expound how, by definition, running the same module multiple times is a conflict of interest to any degree.

Quertus
2017-06-13, 12:24 PM
So as a GM you don't challenge your players in any way?
I'm interested to know how such games work or what happens since the GM provides no challenge.

I don't understand the position of "the GM is not a challenger." Have you played D&D? D&D doesn't exactly do a great job of describing the DMs job but it at least makes it clear that you are supposed to put difficulties in the path of your players. Hell, monsters have a "Challenge Rating" as part of their stat block.

I can be the person who challenges and opposes my players' desires WITHOUT BEING ANTAGONISTIC TO MY PLAYERS. I want my players to overcome the challenges I bring forward. But they will come all the same.

Why do we keep equating "challenge" with "antagonize."

This argument is nonsensical and relies on blatant misinterpretation of what "challenges the players" means.

And even WITH this clarification, the conflict of interest remains.

Also, please expound how, by definition, running the same module multiple times is a conflict of interest to any degree.

My job as GM is to run the world. Everyone's job is to make the game fun. The module's job is to provide a challenge. Alternately, when I run a sandbox, it's usually the players' job to provide or determine the challenge. EDIT: so, to explicitly state it, no, my job as GM does not involve providing a challenge.

The conflict of interest to which I refer is the conflict between "wanting the character to succeed" (or whichever presumedly equivalent words you ate using) and "wanting to roleplay the character correctly". The reason I consider it a bigger conflict of interest for PCs is that the DM gets to enjoy the whole world, whereas the PCs may feel limited to enjoying only their own character's exploits.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-13, 12:40 PM
My job as GM is to run the world. Everyone's job is to make the game fun. The module's job is to provide a challenge. Alternately, when I run a sandbox, it's usually the players' job to provide or determine the challenge. EDIT: so, to explicitly state it, no, my job as GM does not involve providing a challenge.
So in a sandbox campaign your players decide where the monsters are, and how many, and play them in combat?
They determine the DCs?
They decide who the antagonist(s) is/are, amd how they behave?
There is no argument here. The bad things in your characters' way come out of YOUR head unless you borrow from a module, and even then you enact their actions and tactics.

Come on. Playing the world ALSO means playing everything challenging within that world, or else nothing meaningful happens.



The conflict of interest to which I refer is the conflict between "wanting the character to succeed" (or whichever presumedly equivalent words you ate using) and "wanting to roleplay the character correctly". The reason I consider it a bigger conflict of interest for PCs is that the DM gets to enjoy the whole world, whereas the PCs may feel limited to enjoying only their own character's exploits.

Listen, I'm really sick right now. Seriously, miserably sick. And I still have the presence of mind to note that this is in no way related to running a module multiple times.

obryn
2017-06-13, 01:14 PM
Well, I agree with this in that Exploration and Discovery are my favorite parts of a game. And I suppose I therefore see why you consider the spotlight being shone on a DMPC different than or being shone on a PC. But, not everyone holds Exploration as the only possible point of the game. Not everyone calls a game that isn't focused on Exploration badwrongfun. As is evidenced by those who play the same module repeatedly with different characters.

So, for those who don't come from your school of "Exploration or badwrongfun", I see no difference in shining the spotlight on a DMPC vs adding in another player, and shining the spotlight on their PC.

I also agree that I heartily prefer to play, and try to hand off the mantle of GM whenever possible.

Fortunately, several of my groups do the whole "rotating DM" thing, so DMPCs are the standard in those groups, not the exception.
"Exploration" is a giant catch-all term that I'm using as short-hand for "Doing stuff, and finding out what happens." Think, "discovery" and not "giant trek through wilderness." The latter can include the former, but the former is much, much bigger. Sorry for not being clearer about that.

And yes, I think this process of exploration and discovery is key to RPGs. In fact, it's the core activity.

Playing an adventure with different characters and a different DM is kinda unusual, but a new DM will almost certainly run parts of an adventure differently - especially if they know your history with it. But I have to ask again - do you let your players read your adventure notes? Because if not, this is all academic, isn't it?

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 01:14 PM
What’s a DMPC?
That’s the OP’s original question, and we still have multiple definitions flying around. If we can’t agree on what a DMPC is, how can we discuss its merits?

Definition A
A DMPC is impossible, there are NPCs and PCs, there is nothing else.

True... true, but people are talking about a NPC that is being played as if it were a PC. But what does “as if” mean?

Definition B
A DMPC is an NPC that is run "as if" it were a PC from an in game and rules perspective.

The “DMPC” is one of the regular protagonists of the story like a PC
The “DMPC” as a character in the story makes his/her own decisions and is not subservient to any of the PCs
The “DMPC” collects XP and levels up like a PC
The “DMPC” has a character sheet as complex as the ones for the PCs
etc

Note this definition is entirely about the NPC and how it interacts within the game/story. Not about the real world people like the DM and the players.

Definition C
A DMPC is an NPC that is run "as if" it were a PC from an out of game perspective. This has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game, it has to do with the roles and experiences of the real world people: DMs & Players.

The DM is trying to experience the game through the role of a “player” and the role of a “DM” at the same time
The DM has a NPC that he/she regards as “their” character in the story
The DM wants their DMPC to have a “staring role” in the story just like the players want their PCs to have a "staring role"
The DM wants to “explore and discover” the story and world vicariously through their DMPC just like the players “explore and discover” the story and world vicariously through their PCs
The DM has an emotional attachment to his DMPC the same way a player has an emotional attachment to their PCs
etc

Note that this definition is entirely about the DM and the players as real people and how they experience the game. It isn’t about the mechanics or the NPCs/PCs roles from an in-game perspective.


And there are some people who believe that a DMPC is both definitions 'B' and 'C' combined.

A major problem here is that some people in this discussion make the mistake of assuming their definition is self evident and obviously the only proper definition... and forget to consider that the person they are debating has a different view on that matter.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 01:40 PM
The problems, when they occur, arise largely out of the issues in C.

Of those in B, only this one -- The “DMPC” is one of the regular protagonists of the story like a PC -- has problem potential.

obryn
2017-06-13, 01:42 PM
I don't think you can separate those out like that. You will still have a conflict of roles if the DMPC is a regular protagonist on equal footing with the PCs, that they roleplay and make decisions for.

e: Additionally the entire "B" section just seems unnecessary to me. If you have an extra full-time character in the party, they should be temporary, or played by (maybe also attached to) one of the players, or (ideally) both.

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 01:45 PM
The problems, when they occur, arise largely out of the issues in C.

Of those in B, only this one -- The “DMPC” is one of the regular protagonists of the story like a PC -- has problem potential.But you can see how if someone who uses definition 'B' says "A DMPC can be done properly" is wasting their breath if they are talking to someone who reads the term "DMPC", and immediately thinks definition 'C'.

obryn
2017-06-13, 01:48 PM
But you can see how if someone who uses definition 'B' says "A DMPC can be done properly" is wasting their breath if they are talking to someone who reads the term "DMPC", and immediately thinks definition 'C'.
But that's kind of the point; it's "being in the party full-time and being run by the DM" that's the problematic part. You are trying to separate out the gameplay from the people, but that can't be done. Because someone is running that character, roleplaying them, and taking part in discussions.

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 01:50 PM
I don't think you can separate those out like that. You will still have a conflict of roles if the DMPC is a regular protagonist on equal footing with the PCs, that they roleplay and make decisions for.Not if the DM's attitude towards this NPC is the same as their attitude towards all other NPCs. Just another character in the world that the players are exploring.


e: Additionally the entire "B" section just seems unnecessary to me. If you have an extra full-time character in the party, they should be temporary, or played by (maybe also attached to) one of the players, or (ideally) both.It doesn't matter what you think they should be. They are and do exist. People have their reasons for preferring it this way.

And besides, all of your reasons for thinking that are likely based on concepts from "C".

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 01:53 PM
But that's kind of the point; it's "being in the party full-time and being run by the DM" that's the problematic part. You are trying to separate out the gameplay from the people, but that can't be done. Because someone is running that character, roleplaying them, and taking part in discussions.It can so be done. The DM plays ALL SORTS OF NPCs, all the time. This is just another one of them. As long as that is the DM's perspective then NONE of "C" applies.

Thrudd
2017-06-13, 02:02 PM
I don't think you can separate those out like that. You will still have a conflict of roles if the DMPC is a regular protagonist on equal footing with the PCs, that they roleplay and make decisions for.

Right. Because an NPC can't "make his/her own decisions". That is the DM making those decisions, the same DM who controls how the entire world reacts. It is impossible for them to be "on equal footing" with the PCs in that sense. Whether they are awarded XP and have a detailed character sheet is irrelevant, as is the DM's skill at role playing. An NPC that accompanies the party, either because there are too few players or as a plot device, needs to be treated with special care that they do not negate or even affect the players' decision-making process, nor alter the consequences of those decisions (other than being treated as a tactical element to consider in their plans - an extra body that can carry stuff or help in a fight or heal someone). Never should the NPC companion be allowed to provide help in terms of making those plans or suggesting courses of action (unless the DM is using some kind of RNG to decide what the NPC will say), nor interact with other NPCs on behalf of the party or do anything else of consequence outside of pre-planned plot things (such as accompany the princess back to her court, where she convinces the king to reward the adventurers).

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 02:09 PM
If you can't imagine the mechanics from 'B' happening for any reason other than the motivations from 'C'. Then you are unable of seeing the other side of the debate.

A DM can run an NPC that meets definition 'B' and have no desire for any of the OOC experiences described in 'C'

obryn
2017-06-13, 02:18 PM
Not if the DM's attitude towards this NPC is the same as their attitude towards all other NPCs. Just another character in the world that the players are exploring.

It doesn't matter what you think they should be. They are and do exist. People have their reasons for preferring it this way.

And besides, all of your reasons for thinking that are likely based on concepts from "C".
It's not just another NPC if they are always traveling with the adventuring party. Someone is roleplaying that character. Someone is making decisions for them while adventuring. Someone is partaking in discussions of the best courses of actions.

And as for my other comment - what reasons? Why is it important for the DM to be running a full PC under their control (as opposed to one of the players taking on a secondary) other than the edge case of a group of brand new players who don't know enough how to run characters and/or appropriately adjust the difficulty of a pre-written adventure?


It can so be done. The DM plays ALL SORTS OF NPCs, all the time. This is just another one of them. As long as that is the DM's perspective then NONE of "C" applies.
So is this going back to ImNotTrevor's "I'm just a better role-player" thing again?

And no. If the character is a full part of the adventuring party, there through all of their travels, then no, this is not just another NPC.

Thrudd
2017-06-13, 02:26 PM
If you can't imagine the mechanics from 'B' happening for any reason other than the motivations from 'C'. Then you are unable of seeing the other side of the debate.

A DM can run an NPC that meets definition 'B' and have no desire for any of the OOC experiences described in 'C'

The only problems in 'B' are the "protagonist in the story" and "on equal footing with the PC's". For these things to be so, it implies the DM is not showing the careful attitude that I outlined above for the treatment of NPC companions of the party. A permanent party member, sure. "On equal footing" is a problem - because no matter how great you are at role playing and no matter that you have none of the motives of 'C' (at least you don't think you do), if you are allowing the NPC to influence the players or other NPCs, you are taking away game play decisions from the players. An NPC companion stays quiet while the players are debating a course of action, because those important consequential decisions are the entire purpose of playing - the DM should never chime in on those, not even in the guise of a supportive and totally-in-character NPC. Staying quiet for important decisions is not the action of a "protagonist on equal footing" with the rest, but that is what is required of you as the DM.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 02:27 PM
But you can see how if someone who uses definition 'B' says "A DMPC can be done properly" is wasting their breath if they are talking to someone who reads the term "DMPC", and immediately thinks definition 'C'.


Yes, but if we're talking about how a "GMPC" can be a problem or cause a problem, not only are the other three items in B not potential problem sources, they're also not things that even CAN distinguish an NPC from a GMPC. They're all things that can apply to any NPC, which would make any NPC in theory a GMPC, and remove any utility at all from the term GMPC.


Many/Most NPCs should be independent and make their own decisions, and not be puppets to or revolve around the PCs.
Whether the NPC gets XP is purely a matter of how much bookkeeping the GM wants to do, and nothing more.
Whether the NPC has a character sheet as complete/complex as the PCs is a complete non-issue -- if someone's taking this to be an indicator of something bad, then frankly they have their own issues that I can't waste time on.


Of the items you listed under B, only this one can form any meaningful distinction between every NPC ever, and specifically a "GMPC":


The “DMPC” is one of the regular protagonists of the story like a PC


While I dislike the conflation of RPG concepts and fiction/story terminology, the core issues with this particular item are the risk of NPCs consistently overshadowing the PCs and the course of events revolving around the NPC, and the NPC having to contribute to the planning and actions of the party while walking a fine line between knowledge bleed from the GM, and being purposefully ignorant beyond justification.

Compare that with your C:



A DMPC is an NPC that is run "as if" it were a PC from an out of game perspective. This has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game, it has to do with the roles and experiences of the real world people: DMs & Players.
The DM is trying to experience the game through the role of a “player” and the role of a “DM” at the same time
The DM has a NPC that he/she regards as “their” character in the story
The DM wants their DMPC to have a “staring role” in the story just like the players want their PCs to have a "staring role"
The DM wants to “explore and discover” the story and world vicariously through their DMPC just like the players “explore and discover” the story and world vicariously through their PCs
The DM has an emotional attachment to his DMPC the same way a player has an emotional attachment to their PCs


Here we have functional distinctions between any old NPC and a "GMPC", and sources of potential tension between the GM's role as neutral arbiter and runner everything and anything that's not in the direct control of one of the players -- and how they're treating that one particular character under their control.

Quertus
2017-06-13, 02:31 PM
"Exploration" is a giant catch-all term that I'm using as short-hand for "Doing stuff, and finding out what happens." Think, "discovery" and not "giant trek through wilderness." The latter can include the former, but the former is much, much bigger. Sorry for not being clearer about that.

And yes, I think this process of exploration and discovery is key to RPGs. In fact, it's the core activity.

Playing an adventure with different characters and a different DM is kinda unusual, but a new DM will almost certainly run parts of an adventure differently - especially if they know your history with it. But I have to ask again - do you let your players read your adventure notes? Because if not, this is all academic, isn't it?

Good, we're using the word the same way.

You'll have to ask those who run adventures multiple times to be sure, but I've gotten the impression that "new DM" is optional.

I am ok with a game without Exploration, so long as we're

Again, when I have a DMPC, my first read through the module is Exploration, and setting up Role-playing. As I love Exploration, no, I don't encourage others to read ahead. But, if that's not their thing, and they want to read ahead... And enjoy the game that way... Who am I to say they're wrong?

obryn
2017-06-13, 02:43 PM
Many/Most NPCs should be independent and make their own decisions, and not be puppets to or revolve around the PCs.
Whether the NPC gets XP is purely a matter of how much bookkeeping the GM wants to do, and nothing more.
Whether the NPC has a character sheet as complete/complex as the PCs is a complete non-issue -- if someone's taking this to be an indicator of something bad, then frankly they have their own issues that I can't waste time on.

That last part was probably in response to me - where I recommend handing a mechanically simplified helpful NPC to the players, if they have their plates full already with running their own characters. (And to limit the DM's investment in their potential advancement and/or survival. :smallbiggrin:)

It's not the lynchpin of my argument, needless to say. But there are quite a lot of games where (either due to their complexity or their lack of PC/NPC symmetry) this can be helpful or even necessary. For reference, here was my own "best practices" list from upthread, which was in response to yet other things upthread.


1) Keep any tagalong NPCs temporary and relevant to the active situation at-hand. If they're investigating a murder, having Investigator Sally along makes sense. If they're slaying a dragon, hiring Joan the Dragon-Slayer makes sense. If they're saving a kingdom, Sir Greg the Knight can help.
(2) Whenever possible, offload management of the NPC to the actual players of the game. They should run the NPC in combat (with the DM keeping veto rights if necessary), and the NPC should mostly speak to their areas of expertise.
(3) The NPCs should generally be the players' idea. Joan the Dragon Slayer might volunteer to come along, but unlike a PC, she wasn't part of the group in the first place.
(4) Keep them simplified with pared-down mechanics. Don't write them up like a full PC; that level of detail is almost definitely unnecessary. This will also serve to limit the DM's investment in their survival and advancement. If you find yourself saying "I can't wait to take X feat next level!" you're in the wrong mindset.
(5) Their power level should be below that of the PCs *and* ideally shoring up weak points in the PCs' capabilities. ("Investigator Sally is along to provide knowledge of the city and contacts.")
(6) Any rewards should be settled upon and appropriate. Joan probably wants her fair share of the dragon's horde and maybe a specific item she knows is there. Sir Greg might be happy just to save the kingdom.

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 02:53 PM
And as for my other comment - what reasons?the same reason the DM puts any non combat NPCs in the game. ubless you are playing hack and slash, NPCs add to the story. They add to the world. An NPC that travels with the party can add tons of depth to the players exploration of the social side of the world.

So is this going back to ImNotTrevor's "I'm just a better role-player" thing again?nope. As stated DMs already do everything you worry about with other NPCs. Maybe to a different degree but they do it.

And no. If the character is a full part of the adventuring party, there through all of their travels, then no, this is not just another NPC.
Mechanically yes. But emotionally for the DM? Not necessarily

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 03:08 PM
That last part was probably in response to me - where I recommend handing a mechanically simplified helpful NPC to the players, if they have their plates full already with running their own characters. (And to limit the DM's investment in their potential advancement and/or survival. :smallbiggrin:)

It's not the lynchpin of my argument, needless to say. But there are quite a lot of games where (either due to their complexity or their lack of PC/NPC symmetry) this can be helpful or even necessary. For reference, here was my own "best practices" list from upthread, which was in response to yet other things upthread.

Right, but your argument there wasn't "If the NPC has a full character sheet, then they're a GMPC", was it?

obryn
2017-06-13, 03:17 PM
the same reason the DM puts any non combat NPCs in the game. ubless you are playing hack and slash, NPCs add to the story. They add to the world. An NPC that travels with the party can add tons of depth to the players exploration of the social side of the world.
nope. As stated DMs already do everything you worry about with other NPCs. Maybe to a different degree but they do it.

Mechanically yes. But emotionally for the DM? Not necessarily
How can a DMPC who is aiding the same party for an entire campaign meaningfully expand the depth of exploration?


Right, but your argument there wasn't "If the NPC has a full character sheet, then they're a GMPC", was it?
Well I sure didn't think so.

Talakeal
2017-06-13, 03:30 PM
I can see where you're going with this, but there's a huge difference between running an NPC a lot in one game (which is fundamentally what a DMPC is) and running two different games simultaneously. It's really not an even comparison.

For me playing a character in an RPG requires significantly more mental effort than playing a video game, so I would imagine it would be of a similar level of distraction while running a game (which takes far more effort than either).

I have actually had people playing MMOs on their laptop at the gaming table, and far more people playing with their smart phones, and they always insist that it doesn't impact their ability to pay attention to the game, but it always does.

Also, when I have a player who is running two PCs their turns tend to take far far more than twice as long as the other players because they normally think about what they are going to be doing on their following turn during the other players / NPCs turn, but if they are running two PCs they run out of time to fully plan out their actions before it gets around to their side of the table again.

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 03:43 PM
How can a DMPC who is aiding the same party for an entire campaign meaningfully expand the depth of exploration You clearly play a completely different type of game if you can't imagine this. (Not saying my way is better)

Getting to know NPCs = getting to know world = greater depth of being immersed in a different reality.

Even thinking of CRPGs. I enjoy the quirks and antics of the tag along characters.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 04:07 PM
How can a DMPC who is aiding the same party for an entire campaign meaningfully expand the depth of exploration?


As opposed to an NPC who is aiding the party for an entire campaign? If any NPC that's along for most of the campaign is an "GMPC", then I've had several instances of the players being responsible for turning an NPC into a GMPC.

Jay R
2017-06-13, 05:26 PM
I tried it once, in a game of original D&D when we were going to trade off DMs. My DMPC was a bard named Gwydion. I used all the tools to ensure fairness – rolling randomly for where Gwydion should move when there was a pit trap, having somebody else decide if Gwydion would eat the mushroom given them by a witch, choosing which opponent Gwydion should attack. Every significant decision for which I had inside information was made by a die roll or a player.

I eventually realized that I wasn’t really playing Gwydion at all. “Every significant decision for which [the DM] had inside information” is the core of the game. I was making his meaningless decisions, but didn’t have any control over anything Gwydion did that actually mattered.

I wasn’t, and therefore Gwydion wasn’t, trying to figure out the secret of the Staves of the Wanderers.
I wasn’t, and therefore Gwydion wasn’t, planning melee strategy.
I wasn’t, and therefore Gwydion wasn’t, deciding whether to cross on the rickety bridge, pick up the unidentified (and possibly cursed) sword, or trust the pirate captain.

I was in a false position with regard to him, unlike anything I’d felt with an NPC. I identified with him and wanted him to succeed, and therefore really wanted him to eat the mushroom (for +1 CON), or pick up the sword with three wishes.

If a DMPC is being played meaningfully, then the DM is making important decisions while knowing what effect they will have. If the DM is not actually making important decisions, then the character is not being played like a PC. PCs are used to try to learn things, understand what's going on, and solve mysteries. The DM can't do any of that

Yes, it can be done safely, without hurting the game. But that means the DM isn’t playing him as a PC..

RazorChain
2017-06-13, 06:03 PM
What’s a DMPC?
That’s the OP’s original question, and we still have multiple definitions flying around. If we can’t agree on what a DMPC is, how can we discuss its merits?

Definition A
A DMPC is impossible, there are NPCs and PCs, there is nothing else.

True... true, but people are talking about a NPC that is being played as if it were a PC. But what does “as if” mean?

Definition B
A DMPC is an NPC that is run "as if" it were a PC from an in game and rules perspective.

The “DMPC” is one of the regular protagonists of the story like a PC
The “DMPC” as a character in the story makes his/her own decisions and is not subservient to any of the PCs
The “DMPC” collects XP and levels up like a PC
The “DMPC” has a character sheet as complex as the ones for the PCs
etc

Note this definition is entirely about the NPC and how it interacts within the game/story. Not about the real world people like the DM and the players.

Definition C
A DMPC is an NPC that is run "as if" it were a PC from an out of game perspective. This has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game, it has to do with the roles and experiences of the real world people: DMs & Players.

The DM is trying to experience the game through the role of a “player” and the role of a “DM” at the same time
The DM has a NPC that he/she regards as “their” character in the story
The DM wants their DMPC to have a “staring role” in the story just like the players want their PCs to have a "staring role"
The DM wants to “explore and discover” the story and world vicariously through their DMPC just like the players “explore and discover” the story and world vicariously through their PCs
The DM has an emotional attachment to his DMPC the same way a player has an emotional attachment to their PCs
etc

Note that this definition is entirely about the DM and the players as real people and how they experience the game. It isn’t about the mechanics or the NPCs/PCs roles from an in-game perspective.


And there are some people who believe that a DMPC is both definitions 'B' and 'C' combined.

A major problem here is that some people in this discussion make the mistake of assuming their definition is self evident and obviously the only proper definition... and forget to consider that the person they are debating has a different view on that matter.


The B and C are both DMPC. The key here is a protagonist played like a PC by the GM.

The level of emotional attachment is often indication of when the DMPC becomes a problem and detracts from the fun.

Why or how the DMPC ended up with the party doesnt matter. It's when that protagonist/main character line gets crossed.

Dragonexx
2017-06-13, 06:26 PM
Why is that a bad thing inherently. DMPC as a protaganist has happened in just about every game I've been involved in.

RazorChain
2017-06-13, 07:15 PM
Why is that a bad thing inherently. DMPC as a protaganist has happened in just about every game I've been involved in.

It isnt inherently bad. You can play the game as you like. It is only a problem if it detracts from the fun

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 07:47 PM
I've seen a lot of comments about my use of the term "protagonist".

When I used that term, I didn't mean it as "the lead role" or anything like that. A character can play a supporting role and still be a protagonist... and if I'm mistaken about that, then we have yet another situation where the disagreement is rooted in the meaning of the word itself rather than the intended message.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-06-13, 07:49 PM
pro·tag·o·nist
noun
the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text.

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 07:56 PM
pro·tag·o·nist
noun
the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text.Yes, but are people going to get fussy about that "major character" means? A major character throughout a story could play a supporting role to the main character, but still be "major" compared to everyone else in the story. Or, in other words, If you have 5 major characters in a story, they don't have to have equal billing... there can be a hierarchy

Harry Potter is the lead of the story, but Ron and Hermione are protagonists too

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-13, 08:12 PM
Yes, but are people going to get fussy about that "major character" means? A major character throughout a story could play a supporting role to the main character, but still be "major" compared to everyone else in the story. Or, in other words, If you have 5 major characters in a story, they don't have to have equal billing... there can be a hierarchy

Harry Potter is the lead of the story, but Ron and Hermione are protagonists too

And they would all three be PCs. The problem comes in when Dumbledore decides to join the trio for all the adventures.

The Players should play all the protagonists. The DM doesn't need to be a protagonist. They're already everyone else, too.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-13, 08:15 PM
Why is that a bad thing inherently. DMPC as a protaganist has happened in just about every game I've been involved in.


It isnt inherently bad. You can play the game as you like. It is only a problem if it detracts from the fun

"Russian Roullette isn't inherently bad. Every time I've played, I've survived."
Yes this is an extreme exaggeration, but I'm re-illustrating why I'm discarding anecdotes.

And yes, do what's fun for you. There's no badwrongfun component here, my advice has not been "never use DMPCs" but rather "Be extremely cautious about their use and avoid it whenever possible."

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 08:59 PM
And they would all three be PCs. The problem comes in when Dumbledore decides to join the trio for all the adventures.

The Players should play all the protagonists. The DM doesn't need to be a protagonist. They're already everyone else, too.Yes you are right, the problem is when the DM has Dumbledore tag along all the time. Nobody is arguing that. And no, the DM doesn't need to play a protagonist, but sometimes the DM and the players want that.


"Russian Roullette isn't inherently bad. Every time I've played, I've survived."
Yes this is an extreme exaggeration, but I'm re-illustrating why I'm discarding anecdotes.

And yes, do what's fun for you. There's no badwrongfun component here, my advice has not been "never use DMPCs" but rather "Be extremely cautious about their use and avoid it whenever possible."Well, I did the math, and about 40% of the games I have been part of in the last 33 years have had a GMPC, and not once has it caused a problem... you may discard this as an anecdote, but you have yet to give me a tangible reason why having the DM run a NPC as a fellow protagonist is wrong. Every reason you have given has been a description of a crappy GM, and from my perspective, that type of DM would suck with or without a DMPC.

Maybe I have just been lucky, and never had a bad GM.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-13, 09:02 PM
Just as "this hasn't ever caused a problem for me" is not proof that something cannot cause a problem...

... "this can cause a problem" or "this has caused problems for me" is not proof that something will always cause a problem every time.

Both sides are over-applying their own experiences at the expense of others' experiences.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-13, 09:26 PM
Yes you are right, the problem is when the DM has Dumbledore tag along all the time. Nobody is arguing that. And no, the DM doesn't need to play a protagonist, but sometimes the DM and the players want that.

Well, I did the math, and about 40% of the games I have been part of in the last 33 years have had a GMPC, and not once has it caused a problem... you may discard this as an anecdote, but you have yet to give me a tangible reason why having the DM run a NPC as a fellow protagonist is wrong. Every reason you have given has been a description of a crappy GM, and from my perspective, that type of DM would suck with or without a DMPC.

Maybe I have just been lucky, and never had a bad GM.

The inherent Conflict of Interest that has only ever been ignored is the reason to avoid it.

Legitimate question:
A judge is on trial for [a crime, take your pick]. Since he is a judge, should he be able to be the judge of his own case?
What if he's really impartial?
What if the next county over did this a few times and it always worked out fine?

I'm not going to predict YOUR answer, but it is safe to predict that most would say that the conflict of interest alone is reason enough to say "no." It has nothing to do with presumption of guilt, or severity of crime. It's just as unseemly for Loitering as for Murder, though the stakes are higher in the latter. It has nothing to do with his personal integrity or impartiality.
All defenses of DMPCs have avoided dealing with the conflict of interest and instead provided excuses to ignore it this once maybe. Essentially the equivalent to the "what if" options I presented above.

The next counteragument I predict is "but this is just a game, not at serious as this conflict of interest you present" which will miss the point of the example, which is this:
Excuses for why we can "safely ignore" the conflict of interest do not negate or eliminate that conflict. It's basically just throwing a blanket over it and saying "all will he well despite this." Which is all well and good, but it remains there.

The DM controls everything bad that is coming after the PCs. Bar none. There is no satisfactory counterargument to this fact. He cannot do this job and also be a PC without an obvious conflict of interest. That conflict in and of itself is sufficient reason to avoid them whenever possible.

A note:
Aside from once that I remember (talking about the prevalence of negative stories of DMPCs moreso than positive or neutral recountings, which I guess kinda counts), I've not used my personal experiences at all in this discussion, only the assertion that there is a conflict of interest between being the person in control of the bad things and one of the people trying to overcome the bad things at the same time.

There is a conflict of interest in being the guy who makes up the map and one of the people exploring the map at the same time. (You're not even for-realsies exploring at that point.)

I could go on but I have strep throat and spending 20 minutes typing and using my brain has me spent and I need a break.

RazorChain
2017-06-13, 09:34 PM
Yes, but are people going to get fussy about that "major character" means? A major character throughout a story could play a supporting role to the main character, but still be "major" compared to everyone else in the story. Or, in other words, If you have 5 major characters in a story, they don't have to have equal billing... there can be a hierarchy

Harry Potter is the lead of the story, but Ron and Hermione are protagonists too

The party of player characters are the protagonists. The game is about them so I find it a fitting explanation that a DMPC is a character played by the DM like a player character and is a protagonist.

The why and how this comes about dont have anything to do with the definition.

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 10:20 PM
The inherent Conflict of Interest that has only ever been ignored is the reason to avoid it.And I will assert again that there is no conflict of interest in the first place. Conflict of interest only becomes a thing if you start getting into the "Definition C", category of my earlier post.

If the DM doesn't see this NPC as "his character", if the DM has no emotional attachment to the NPC, If the DM isn't playing the NPC to attempt to have a "player experience of the game"... then there is no conflict of interest.

This is why it matters so much as to why the DM is running this NPC. If he/she is totally neutral as to the success/failure of the NPC, then there is no "interest" to be in conflict with. The DM has no interest in the NPC beyond making sure the NPC enhances the players experience of the game and the NPC is role played in a believable and consistent way.


There is a conflict of interest in being the guy who makes up the map and one of the people exploring the map at the same time. (You're not even for-realsies exploring at that point.)back to "category C". A DM that is only in category "B" isn't trying to explore the map. The DM as a person has no interest in exploring the map. The DM will role play the NPC as if the NPC cares, but they don't really have to put too much effort into it. The players are exploring through their PCs. The NPC simply has to say "wow, how's about that?" when something is discovered.


I could go on but I have strep throat and spending 20 minutes typing and using my brain has me spent and I need a break.Hats off to you for sticking it out.

I often wonder what would happen if I was as dedicated to my job as I was dedicated to expressing my opinion to strangers over the internet... (I do care about my job, just not to that level)

Thrudd
2017-06-13, 10:21 PM
Whether or not someone accepts and embraces the practice of using "DMPC" probably rests a lot on what they expect from these games and how they define a "good game". Suffice to say, the very existence of an NPC so integral to the party as to be called a "DMPC" in D&D would be a negative mark on a game, for me.

Games where protagonist NPC's are frequent, I am guessing, tend to be those where the players are expecting to be told a story, and the protagonist NPC's existence is just part of the story. They are not bothered by the conflict of interest, because they do not expect any challenge or agency - only the slow reveal of the story the DM has planned interspersed with set encounters. If the DM is an entertaining role player, then everyone likes the NPC that is always hanging around and being interesting to interact with, and also makes sure the plot keeps moving forward. It is, in fact, a convenient tool to make sure the players stay on task and go where they are supposed to go, when the DM can interject hints or make suggestions in the guise of the NPC. And the players of these sorts of games, rather than being miffed at this might even be appreciative, because they expect and want nothing more than to have the story revealed to them and do what the DM wants in order to get the next level.

Quertus
2017-06-13, 10:28 PM
Every reason you have given has been a description of a crappy GM, and from my perspective, that type of DM would suck with or without a DMPC.

This states much better what I have been trying to get across - that many of the arguments I've read (whether anyone is actually making them, or I'm just senile) are not valid arguments about DMPCs, but instead have some other root failing.

There are issues with DMPCs, but some of what I read people to be saying are not them. They're just signs of a bad DM, or other problems not specific to DMPCs.


The inherent Conflict of Interest that has only ever been ignored is the reason to avoid it.

I don't think it's fair to categorize my response as only ever ignoring CoI. I've dismissed it as irrelevant to the specific point I was making, while also briefly touching on it. That hardly feels like it justified being described as ignoring it.

But, I'm still on page 3, so I also haven't finished addressing it, either. :smalltongue:

Get better, and I'll address CoI properly once I catch up with the thread.

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 10:47 PM
Games where protagonist NPC's are frequent, I am guessing, tend to be those where the players are expecting to be told a story, and the protagonist NPC's existence is just part of the story. They are not bothered by the conflict of interest, because they do not expect any challenge or agency - only the slow reveal of the story the DM has planned interspersed with set encounters.I'm not sure why there is this assumption that the NPC must be bossy and tell the PCs what to do, or even be there to probe them in a certain direction... It is quite easy to run this type of NPC with a passive personality "Don't ask me where to go next, you guys seem to be the ones that know what's going on around here".

If the group of PCs are lacking muscle, you can add a "meat shield" NPC that is all fight, but low Int & Wis. They aren't much help with moving the plot along, but they will make sure you don't die in a fight.

If the group of PCs are great in combat (and the players enjoy combat heavy games), the NPC could be a healer with lots of buff spells.. someone who hangs back during battle and lets the PCs shine. Maybe a Cleric from a far away land on a sabbatical exploring exotic (to him) countries for a year or two before going back home. Being a foreigner, he has no useful knowledge of what's going on locally, and can't do much to move the plot along.

Thrudd
2017-06-13, 11:32 PM
I'm not sure why there is this assumption that the NPC must be bossy and tell the PCs what to do, or even be there to probe them in a certain direction... It is quite easy to run this type of NPC with a passive personality "Don't ask me where to go next, you guys seem to be the ones that know what's going on around here".

If the group of PCs are lacking muscle, you can add a "meat shield" NPC that is all fight, but low Int & Wis. They aren't much help with moving the plot along, but they will make sure you don't die in a fight.

If the group of PCs are great in combat (and the players enjoy combat heavy games), the NPC could be a healer with lots of buff spells.. someone who hangs back during battle and lets the PCs shine. Maybe a Cleric from a far away land on a sabbatical exploring exotic (to him) countries for a year or two before going back home. Being a foreigner, he has no useful knowledge of what's going on locally, and can't do much to move the plot along.

I note you didn't use "DMPC" in that post, but always referred to the helper as an NPC.

I was under the impression that people don't consider that sort of background ally NPC as a "DMPC". They are just there to help a game with too few players, and play no part in "moving the plot along" or making any sort of decisions or really interacting with other NPCs at all. It becomes a "DMPC" when the character is a protagonist equal with the PCs, or when the DM says "this is my character that will be in the party with the rest of you..."

NPCs are a normal and essential part of the game and sometimes ally with the players. A "DMPC" is a misnomer which implies a potentially troubling attitude on the part of the DM who uses it. Maybe it is completely innocent, and they play their "DMPC" just as they would any other NPC, with the correct distance and non-interference with the players' decision making processes. In this case, however, why use a distinguishing term for one NPC versus all the others?

Establishing "best practices" for role playing NPCs is not assisted by encouraging DM's to identify certain special NPCs as "the DM's character".

Aliquid
2017-06-13, 11:57 PM
I note you didn't use "DMPC" in that post, but always referred to the helper as an NPC.

I was under the impression that people don't consider that sort of background ally NPC as a "DMPC". They are just there to help a game with too few players, and play no part in "moving the plot along" or making any sort of decisions or really interacting with other NPCs at all. It becomes a "DMPC" when the character is a protagonist equal with the PCs, or when the DM says "this is my character that will be in the party with the rest of you..."Comments on this thread vary... but there are some that consider an "ally NPC that regularly travels with the PCs" to be unwise under any circumstances.

I have been trying to argue that it doesn't really matter how you define a DMPC. The concept doesn't become a problem until the DM starts seeing it as "their" character in the story.

So, you and I agree... but I am still debating with others.

-edit-
Note, go back one page to post #172 for the reason I'm avoiding using the term DMPC... there isn't that much consensus on the meaning.

Dragonexx
2017-06-14, 01:02 AM
And they would all three be PCs. The problem comes in when Dumbledore decides to join the trio for all the adventures.

The Players should play all the protagonists. The DM doesn't need to be a protagonist. They're already everyone else, too.

And that tells me everything I need to know about your position. You seem to be under the impression that the DMPC must always be more powerful than the PCs instead of on the same level.

Knaight
2017-06-14, 01:18 AM
And that tells me everything I need to know about your position. You seem to be under the impression that the DMPC must always be more powerful than the PCs instead of on the same level.

That's not even slightly what was being stated there. The point is that the DMPC is being run by someone who knows more.

Talakeal
2017-06-14, 01:21 AM
And that tells me everything I need to know about your position. You seem to be under the impression that the DMPC must always be more powerful than the PCs instead of on the same level.

I dont think I have ever heard of a DMPC being better than the players on paper. The issues that normally crop up are that the Character has seen all the DMs notes, agrees wih the DM on every ruling, and never has the DM say no to their bending the rules for extra customization or invoking the "rule of cool", or unintentionally making a character whose tricks wont work in the environments the adventures take them to.

They are typically more powerful than the other players in the same sense as the DMs girlfriend is.

Someone on this forum summed it up in their sig, to paraphrase "the most effective and subtle form of power gaming is to create the character that the GM wishes that they were playing."





Also, a tag-along npc is not by definition a DMPC. Most DMPCs result from a DM saying up front that they are going to be both a player and the DM at the same time and does their best to make it happen.

Which is not to say that NPCs cant take over the plot like a classic Mary Sue, from the Elminster quest giver, to the Baron Von Badass villain, to the chosen one NPC protaganist who makes te players become mere spectators to their adventure, to the living Macguffin messiah figure. All are problem NPCs, but none of them are DMPCs.


Not sure where DMs who have cameo appearances by their former PCs (long since retired after maxing out their level of course) fall on the spectrum.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-14, 01:35 AM
And that tells me everything I need to know about your position. You seem to be under the impression that the DMPC must always be more powerful than the PCs instead of on the same level.

This tells me you have no comprehension of my position and instead need to nitpick the specifics of the example.

I apologize for throwing in the first secondary character that came to mind and would be immediately recognizeable instead of taking the time while sick to pick a side character who could not be blatantly misconstrued.

My bad.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-14, 01:45 AM
And I will assert again that there is no conflict of interest in the first place. Conflict of interest only becomes a thing if you start getting into the "Definition C", category of my earlier post.

If the DM doesn't see this NPC as "his character", if the DM has no emotional attachment to the NPC, If the DM isn't playing the NPC to attempt to have a "player experience of the game"... then there is no conflict of interest.
The conflict of interest occurs for both B and C, same as for the Judge in my example having a conflict of interest even if his intention is to serve justice correctly. The intention of rhe person caught in the conflict has no bearing on the CoI being present.



This is why it matters so much as to why the DM is running this NPC. If he/she is totally neutral as to the success/failure of the NPC, then there is no "interest" to be in conflict with. The DM has no interest in the NPC beyond making sure the NPC enhances the players experience of the game and the NPC is role played in a believable and consistent way.
Would you allow a judge to judge his own court case if he claimed to be totally neutral?
I would not.
Because the conflict of interest exists regardless.



back to "category C". A DM that is only in category "B" isn't trying to explore the map. The DM as a person has no interest in exploring the map. The DM will role play the NPC as if the NPC cares, but they don't really have to put too much effort into it. The players are exploring through their PCs. The NPC simply has to say "wow, how's about that?" when something is discovered.
Again, as with the judge in my example, the personal position of rhe DM does not affect whether or not the conflict of interest is present.



Hats off to you for sticking it out.

I often wonder what would happen if I was as dedicated to my job as I was dedicated to expressing my opinion to strangers over the internet... (I do care about my job, just not to that level)
Honestly, I'm only here because most other activities take too much energy by comparison.



I don't think it's fair to categorize my response as only ever ignoring CoI. I've dismissed it as irrelevant to the specific point I was making, while also briefly touching on it. That hardly feels like it justified being described as ignoring it.

But, I'm still on page 3, so I also haven't finished addressing it, either. :smalltongue:

Get better, and I'll address CoI properly once I catch up with the thread.

Dismissing without addressing is functionally the same as ignoring.

Though, again, I'm not the sort to slyly call people out. If I have an issue with your point specifically, I'm quote it.

Again, sorry if I come across as needlessly blunt or rude. Just know that I don't mean to be rude, I'm just tired and grouchy.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-14, 06:12 AM
Comments on this thread vary... but there are some that consider an "ally NPC that regularly travels with the PCs" to be unwise under any circumstances.

I have been trying to argue that it doesn't really matter how you define a DMPC. The concept doesn't become a problem until the DM starts seeing it as "their" character in the story.

So, you and I agree... but I am still debating with others.

-edit-
Note, go back one page to post #172 for the reason I'm avoiding using the term DMPC... there isn't that much consensus on the meaning.

"The GM starts seeing it as their character" (in the way that a player sees the PC as their character) is kinda core to the definition and a big part of what separates a "GMPC" from a recurring important NPC.

Maybe use a different term if you want, if GMPC seems too loaded. But there are reasons why people are touchy about the notion of an GM having a particular PC of their own that they identify with, and they're not hypothetical.

Quertus
2017-06-14, 06:40 AM
I still haven't read page 4, but...


I dont think I have ever heard of a DMPC being better than the players on paper. The issues that normally crop up are that the Character has seen all the DMs notes, agrees wih the DM on every ruling, and never has the DM say no to their bending the rules for extra customization or invoking the "rule of cool", or unintentionally making a character whose tricks wont work in the environments the adventures take them to.

They are typically more powerful than the other players in the same sense as the DMs girlfriend is.

Someone on this forum summed it up in their sig, to paraphrase "the most effective and subtle form of power gaming is to create the character that the GM wishes that they were playing."

This is fairly close to what I mean when I say that the real, unavoidable issues with DMPCs are subtle, insidious, and all but impossible to fix.


Dismissing without addressing is functionally the same as ignoring.

Though, again, I'm not the sort to slyly call people out. If I have an issue with your point specifically, I'm quote it.

Again, sorry if I come across as needlessly blunt or rude. Just know that I don't mean to be rude, I'm just tired and grouchy.

I didn't quote people in my initial response, because the quotes did not all appear (site has a limit for number of quotes? Sun spots?), and I figured others may well have continued with the faulty logic in the pages I hadn't read. So I instead tried to explain how certain arguments against / issues with DMPCs are instead something other than what they appear.

Now, if your CoI comments existed on page 1 or 2, and I didn't address them, then that means I didn't notice them to be an invalid argument. :smallwink:

But I did address that, as a response to my comments, they were a non sequitur, which, as a response to my attempt to clear up what arguments are and are not actually about DMPCs, was, IMO, the amount of attention they deserved.

The amount of attention a DMPC deserves is a whole other can of worms, and one I've not delved into yet.

ErebusVonMori
2017-06-14, 08:34 AM
I dont think I have ever heard of a DMPC being better than the players on paper.

Just play with some of my DMs, who admittedly I no longer play with. I've seen several DMPCs who could solo the party. This is why I always make a character who is amoral enough to just kill them as soon as they're helpless.

goto124
2017-06-14, 08:48 AM
Something in this thread got my attention: rotating DMs. Games with them will have (some form of) DMPCs, because the DMs take turns being DMs and players. How are PCs handled in such cases, if handled any differently from regular PCs?

Aliquid
2017-06-14, 09:43 AM
The conflict of interest occurs for both B and C, same as for the Judge in my example having a conflict of interest even if his intention is to serve justice correctly. The intention of rhe person caught in the conflict has no bearing on the CoI being present.No, there is no conflict of interest until you get to category "C". I'm not saying that the DM tries to be neutral to avoid the CoI, I'm saying the conflict of interest does not exist[/I], so there is nothing to avoid.

For a conflict of interest to exist, the DM must have two conflicting interests. If the "helpful NPC" doesn't create this any more than everything else the DM does.

People made the argument earlier "well what if there is a trap, the 'helpful NPC' would already know it is there, since the DM knows it is there"
The DM [u]already does this if the PCs set up and ambush for the enemy. The enemy monsters (technically NPCs), have to walk past the trap, and since the DM knows this... by your definition, the monsters do too.

Everything that is being cited as potentially problematic already happens to some degree in the game. The only difference with a NPC that tags along is the frequency.



Would you allow a judge to judge his own court case if he claimed to be totally neutral?
I would not.
Because the conflict of interest exists regardless.The CoI exists because the outcome of the trial has a potential negative impact on the judge's life. Killing off an NPC has no negative impact on the DM's life, no more than the killing off of any other NPC. Heck the DM could have put hours of effort into developing the BBEG, and months of campaigning with the BBEG taunting the players... does the DM have a conflict of interest when running the BBEG in the final battle? He might have developed an attachment to the BBEG... and he know the players' battle plan in advance.





"The GM starts seeing it as their character" (in the way that a player sees the PC as their character) is kinda core to the definition and a big part of what separates a "GMPC" from a recurring important NPC.I've started calling it a "helpful NPC" for that very reason. Because as you say "bad idea" is part of the actual definition of "DMPC" for some people... so how do you argue that? Still, as you see above, "helpful NPC", is still seen as a conflict of interest by some.

pres_man
2017-06-14, 10:05 AM
A lot of thoughts running. I will try to address some here in no particular order.

Using my non-derogatory of definition of a DMPC, Dumbledore (or even Dobbie) would not be one as he doesn't meet the requirements (level, etc.) as the other PCs. Now someone like Luna or Neville would (though I am sure some would complain Neville was too overpowered since he was able to pull the sword from the hat and kill Nagini, and then again Luna was able to detect Harry under his invisibility cloak).

Party allies who act as more support than leader can still qualify as PC equivalent, since some players run their characters the same way. A player that plays the dumb meat-shield and doesn't contribute to party planning is still running a PC. The player that plays the laid back healer who merely buffs and supports and again doesn't know much about anything outside of their own particular faith is still running a PC. So if a DM is running a party ally in the same fashion, it would be strange from an outsider's perspective to say the character is not being played how a PC could be. I think part of the issue is that some people are more assertive and assume this personality trait of their's is what all players should be exhibiting and thus is a trait of running a PC. It is not.

Bias/Conflict of Interest. Would you want a judge helping the defense? Would you want a ref acting as the kicker for the home team? No, of course not. But you would also not want the judge to be running the entire prosecution or for the entire away team acting as the refs. Likewise, you would not want the judge running a trial where their significant other, child, best friend, or someone they care about is involved, and yet we are quite willing to play (at least some of us are) in a social game where the DM's family and friends are able to play with us. I would argue that for a well adjusted DM, there is a greater danger they would show bias towards someone they care about than they would for a character they themselves were running. And let's not even mention when a player has to be gone and the DM for one reason or another might need to run their character, it is the very likely the DM doesn't want to totally impartial when comes to the fate of such a character.

Now there is a real danger of bias with a DM running a character in the party. The DM might potentially get out of an adversarial mindset if they start to identify with the players too much. Of course, whether this is a bad thing is probably up to the people involved and the type of game being played. One should keep in mind that the game should be (heavily) favored towards the PCs in general. Let's say a character only had a 75% chance of surviving any given encounter, then if the party had a typical 4 encounter adventuring day, any character would only have a 32% chance of surviving the day. Now extend that to the entire "life" time of a campaign. If you want a character to make it to the end, the odds must be drastically higher in their favor.

A definite negative to running a party ally is at higher levels, when there are just a lot more options to keep track of. In this case the DMPC can certainly become more burdensome on the DM, as the foes tend to be more complicated, that even a simply designed character can slow down game play. So at low levels, especially if the DM does some prep with the game mechanics, it probably shouldn't be a problem.

As to having players running a party ally, if it is not possible for a person to multi-task, why would it be possible for a non-DM person to do so. I personally have no problem if a player wants to run multiple characters, it just seems strange to suggest that the DM is not capable but the players are.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-14, 10:09 AM
I've started calling it a "helpful NPC" for that very reason. Because as you say "bad idea" is part of the actual definition of "DMPC" for some people... so how do you argue that? Still, as you see above, "helpful NPC", is still seen as a conflict of interest by some.


But just looking at the words "helpful" and "NPC"... I've seen plenty of helpful NPCs who aren't in any way what I'd consider the problematic thing that might objectively and fairly be called "the GM's player character".

At least from here, "frequency" and "helpfulness" don't seem to be the issue.

An NPC who cares for the party's horses, and stays with the horses at the stables when they're stopped in towns, and protects the horses during combat, who is good at her job and good enough with a couple of weapons to not be a liability, would be in almost every session, and be very helpful, but I can't see how she'd be problematic or disruptive, and I don't think she's what most people think of when they think of a "GMPC".

I don't think the term "helpful NPC" really helps with clarity.

Instead, I'd really go back to where it all comes down to how the GM views that particular NPC, and treats that particular NPC -- do they identify with and promote the role and interests of that NPC in the way they would with their own PC when they're a player? That's where the very real potential for conflict of interest exist. And looping back, (IMO) it's not frequency of appearance, or the competence of the NPC, that create conflict of interest.

Aliquid
2017-06-14, 10:51 AM
But just looking at the words "helpful" and "NPC"... I've seen plenty of helpful NPCs who aren't in any way what I'd consider the problematic thing that might objectively and fairly be called "the GM's player character".

At least from here, "frequency" and "helpfulness" don't seem to be the issue.

An NPC who cares for the party's horses, and stays with the horses at the stables when they're stopped in towns, and protects the horses during combat, who is good at her job and good enough with a couple of weapons to not be a liability, would be in almost every session, and be very helpful, but I can't see how she'd be problematic or disruptive, and I don't think she's what most people think of when they think of a "GMPC".

I don't think the term "helpful NPC" really helps with clarity.

Instead, I'd really go back to where it all comes down to how the GM views that particular NPC, and treats that particular NPC -- do they identify with and promote the role and interests of that NPC in the way they would with their own PC when they're a player? That's where the very real potential for conflict of interest exist. And looping back, (IMO) it's not frequency of appearance, or the competence of the NPC, that create conflict of interest.
Which appears to be totally in line with my attempt at breaking down the two recurring definitions of DMPC that I see in this thread.
see this post The people who think a DMPC can be ok, think of a DMPC based on the role of the NPC in the game - in the game the NPC acts and looks like a PC would. The people who think a DMPC is bad, think of the DMPC based on the attitude of the people playing the game - does the DM identify with the NPC in a way similar to the PCs identifying with their characters.

So yes, you are right... you could have a DM identifying with a NPC that only shows up every once in a while. Swooping in to save the day. And you are also right, maybe this NPC is a jerk and messes with the PC's rather than helping them. Maybe the DM has a "trickster" NPC that thwarts the PCs plans whenever they start doing something that doesn't fit with the DM's view of how the story should be progressing. All of which would be seen as a bad thing by most players.

But, this further confirms that a "Helpful NPC that travels with the party" doesn't have to be a problem.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-14, 11:01 AM
Which appears to be totally in line with my attempt at breaking down the two recurring definitions of DMPC that I see in this thread. The people who think a DMPC can be ok, think of a DMPC based on the role of the NPC in the game - in the game the NPC acts and looks like a PC would. The people who think a DMPC is bad, think of the DMPC based on the attitude of the people playing the game - does the DM identify with the NPC in a way similar to the PCs identifying with their characters.

So yes, you are right... you could have a DM identifying with a NPC that only shows up every once in a while. Swooping in to save the day. And you are also right, maybe this NPC is a jerk and messes with the PC's rather than helping them. Maybe the DM has a "trickster" NPC that thwarts the PCs plans whenever they start doing something that doesn't fit with the DM's view of how the story should be progressing. All of which would be seen as a bad thing by most players.

But, this further confirms that a "Helpful NPC that travels with the party" doesn't have to be a problem.

You're right, they don't -- there's a lot going on in the thread, so if someone said any recurring helpful NPC is a "problem GMPC", then 1) I missed it, and 2) I disagree with them.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-14, 11:13 AM
No, there is no conflict of interest until you get to category "C". I'm not saying that the DM tries to be neutral to avoid the CoI, I'm saying the conflict of interest does not exist[/I], so there is nothing to avoid.
You are going to have to demonstrate how this is so, rather than repeating it over and over. I have demonstrated how it exists with no reference to the emotional connection of the GM to the PC. But instead, that two personal interests are at odds whenever the GM has their own "character" with the party. Ie, that they must both provide and enact challenge, as well as be part of overcoming the same. This exists regardless of the GMs personal feelings, as it has no basis in the GMs personal feelings.



For a conflict of interest to exist, the DM must have two conflicting interests. If the "helpful NPC" doesn't create this any more than everything else the DM does.

People made the argument earlier "well what if there is a trap, the 'helpful NPC' would already know it is there, since the DM knows it is there"
The DM [u]already does this if the PCs set up and ambush for the enemy. The enemy monsters (technically NPCs), have to walk past the trap, and since the DM knows this... by your definition, the monsters do too.
But the monsters are not on the same team as the players. That is where this example completely falls apart. This is part of providing challenge. In this case, the DM is not attempting to overcome their own challenge.
This should be really simple to understand.



Everything that is being cited as potentially problematic already happens to some degree in the game. The only difference with a NPC that tags along is the frequency.
I have reiterated and reiterated exactly where the main conflict of interest resides. The only counterarguments that have been made break down to either:
1. Say it isn't there with no reasoning (throwing a blanket over it)
2. Ignoring the core conflict in favor of semi-similar behaviors a DM might do.



The CoI exists because the outcome of the trial has a potential negative impact on the judge's life.
You do not understand what a Conflict of Interest is if you think this is the thrust of the problem, as opposed to:
Potential abuse of justice
Misuse of authority
The core problem of at once trying to judge and be judged fairly at the same time. To put it another way:
The exact same conflict of interest is present in this:
A singing competition judge wants to both participate in the competition and judge the competition.
There is no negative outcome for the judge, but the exact same conflict of interest exists.



Killing off an NPC has no negative impact on the DM's life, no more than the killing off of any other NPC. Heck the DM could have put hours of effort into developing the BBEG, and months of campaigning with the BBEG taunting the players... does the DM have a conflict of interest when running the BBEG in the final battle? He might have developed an attachment to the BBEG... and he know the players' battle plan in advance.
To reiterate, you need to read the source of the conflict of interest carefully. You are assuming my point despite my saying it clearly multiple times. This tells me that either you do not comprehend my point, or you are missing it, OR you are ignoring it. (However, I'm fairly certain it's one of the first two. I sense no malice from you.)





I've started calling it a "helpful NPC" for that very reason. Because as you say "bad idea" is part of the actual definition of "DMPC" for some people... so how do you argue that? Still, as you see above, "helpful NPC", is still seen as a conflict of interest by some.
I'm going to throw in with Max, here. "Helpful NPC" is so vague as to be useless as a term. A character who appears once to pass on a rumor about a massive treasure is a Helpful NPC. And also entirely non-problematic.

The problem comes when the DM is involved in both enacting challenges and overcoming the same through a specific character. If there is an extra character that the DM levels but the other players collectively control when it matters, there is no problem. Because he is not attempting to both provide challenge and overcome the same challenge. He is providing a boon, yes, but is not a participant in the overcoming itself.

It is when the DM is providing and enacting and enforcing challenges, while simultaneously being one of the individuals attempting to overcome these presented challenges, that the Conflict of Interests appears. Because the DM has a potential personal interest (his/her character overcoming challenges within the game.) that conflicts with his "duties" as a DM (enacting, enforcing, playing, providing challenges within the game.)

This is the core conflict that as yet remains unaddressed and remains a problem, REGARDLESS of the DMs personal investment. Remember: a Conflict of Interest is based on POSSIBILITY, not CERTAINTY. So even if the DM is impartial about his particular DMPC, the conflict of interest still exists because the possibility of conflicting interests remains. The mere appearance of a conflict of interest is a PR nightmare for most public officials and corporations. They make people wildly uncomfortable. (If you google Conflict of Interest, you'll get a pretty good amount of Political and Business news articles.) This is why my advice is "stay away." Avoid the mere appearance of the conflict and things will generally by A-ok.

Jormengand
2017-06-14, 11:58 AM
But I don't care if we use the word "player" or not. Since it's either confusing you or bothering you, let's get rid of it. Let's call the person running the game a "Woozle", and everybody who is playing a single character in the game as "Heffalumps".

In that case, a "Heffalump Character" is a character run by one of the Heffalumps, and a "Non-Heffalump Character" is a character played by the Woozle.

And therefore a Woozle Heffalump Character is a contradiction in terms. That was Thrudd's point.

But can you rudisplork at D&D?

But to be honest, I think that more of this kind of renaming would be really helpful in this thread right now.

Aliquid
2017-06-14, 12:32 PM
You are going to have to demonstrate how this is so, rather than repeating it over and over. I have demonstrated how it exists with no reference to the emotional connection of the GM to the PC. But instead, that two personal interests are at odds whenever the GM has their own "character" with the party. Ie, that they must both provide and enact challenge, as well as be part of overcoming the same. This exists regardless of the GMs personal feelings, as it has no basis in the GMs personal feelings. But if the DM has no stake in the outcome this is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter. At worst, I would consider it a "waste of the DM's time", but not a conflict or a problem.


But the monsters are not on the same team as the players.and the DM isn't on the same team as the monsters. He is on nobody's team


I have reiterated and reiterated exactly where the main conflict of interest resides. The only counterarguments that have been made break down to either:
1. Say it isn't there with no reasoning (throwing a blanket over it)
2. Ignoring the core conflict in favor of semi-similar behaviors a DM might do. You have reiterated something that isn't a conflict. A DM role playing both sides of an encounter isn't a conflict unless the DM has a stake in which side wins.


You do not understand what a Conflict of Interest is if you think this is the thrust of the problem, as opposed to:
Potential abuse of justice
Misuse of authority What possible motivation would a DM have to misuse his authority towards an NPC? Every reason you can give will go back to "category C".... every reason. As mentioned by others, it is more likely that the DM would misuse his authority to help the PC of a player that he is particularly fond of.


The core problem of at once trying to judge and be judged fairly at the same time. To put it another way:
The exact same conflict of interest is present in this:
A singing competition judge wants to both participate in the competition and judge the competition.
There is no negative outcome for the judge, but the exact same conflict of interest exists. But there is an outcome that has an impact on the judge. This time a potential positive one. It is reasonable to assume that most people in that judge's position might be tempted to bend the results in his favor. With a DM there is no "in his favor" in the first place. If the DM doesn't care if the NPC succeeds or fails, then where is the "in his favor"


To reiterate, you need to read the source of the conflict of interest carefully. You are assuming my point despite my saying it clearly multiple times. This tells me that either you do not comprehend my point, or you are missing it, OR you are ignoring it. (However, I'm fairly certain it's one of the first two. I sense no malice from you.)I can't see your point because from my perspective it doesn't exist. There is nothing to see. I don't even know how to refute it, because there is nothing there.


I'm going to throw in with Max, here. "Helpful NPC" is so vague as to be useless as a term. A character who appears once to pass on a rumor about a massive treasure is a Helpful NPC. And also entirely non-problematic. the vast majority of my posts have said "a helpful NPC that regularly adventures with the PCs", or something of that nature. The point I've been arguing is that a NPC can easily be a part of the 'adventuring party', without becoming a problem, if handled properly.



The problem comes when the DM is involved in both enacting challenges and overcoming the same through a specific character.and I see that as trivial and irrelevant, unless the DM has a stake in one of the sides succeeding. When the DM rolls for the monster he role plays "how can I smash the party". When the DM rolls for the NPC, he role plays "how can I smash the monster". It isn't hard.

Sure, he know the stats and tactics of both sides... but who cares? Sure it might seem as silly as playing chess against yourself, but unless there is some sort of benefit, or punishment for you if white/black wins, there is no conflict of interest.


It is when the DM is providing and enacting and enforcing challenges, while simultaneously being one of the individuals attempting to overcome these presented challenges, that the Conflict of Interests appears. Because the DM has a potential personal interest (his/her character overcoming challenges within the game.) that conflicts with his "duties" as a DM (enacting, enforcing, playing, providing challenges within the game.)And there it is, once again you are moving into category "C". The DM is viewing this NPC as "his" character, and has a personal interest in that NPC winning.


This is the core conflict that as yet remains unaddressed and remains a problem, REGARDLESS of the DMs personal investment.No, every time you make specific examples of the conflict, you refer to the DM's personal investment.


Remember: a Conflict of Interest is based on POSSIBILITY, not CERTAINTY. So even if the DM is impartial about his particular DMPC, the conflict of interest still exists because the possibility of conflicting interests remains. The mere appearance of a conflict of interest is a PR nightmare for most public officials and corporations.And if the Players of the game know that the DM is running this NPC for THEIR benefit, and they believe that they can say "move along buddy we don't need you anymore", there is no problem. No problem at all.

When it comes down to it, every aspect of a CoI argument has to do with perception. If the players are having fun and don't see this as a CoI, it is completely irrelevant if you see it as a CoI, because you aren't sitting at the table.

Tanarii
2017-06-14, 01:08 PM
An NPC who cares for the party's horses, and stays with the horses at the stables when they're stopped in towns, and protects the horses during combat, who is good at her job and good enough with a couple of weapons to not be a liability, would be in almost every session, and be very helpful, but I can't see how she'd be problematic or disruptive, and I don't think she's what most people think of when they think of a "GMPC".Generally, whether or not such a character is (generally) under control of the DM or a PC, such a character can be categorized as a 'Retainer' or 'Follower' or 'Hireling'. I mean, the exact name doesn't matter, but the conceptual space of such a character is very different from a 'party member'.

Usually when an NPC actively becomes a party member, they fall into one of three kinds of NPCs*:
Henchman (also sometimes Retainer): mostly PC controlled, almost always weaker than PC but can advance in levels, sometimes for interaction purposes or overriding personality reasons becomes DM controlled.
Tagalong : DM controlled, effectively there to provide a necessary skill or spellcasting ability, generally stays 'off camera'.
DMPC: DM controlled, extensive 'on camera' & decision making influencing, and/or flat out railroading presence.

The line between the latter can either be a fine one, or a clear cut one. A tagalong healer/buffer can often just sit in the background as a mobile healbot. Whereas a tagalong scout / guide (often a Ranger or Rogue) can rapidly become a DM PC, because scouting / trap-searching is such a fundamental part of D&D adventuring.

*again, name doesn't really matter, what matters is the conceptual space the characters occupy.

ImNotTrevor
2017-06-14, 01:41 PM
What possible motivation would a DM have to misuse his authority towards an NPC? Every reason you can give will go back to "category C".... every reason. As mentioned by others, it is more likely that the DM would misuse his authority to help the PC of a player that he is particularly fond of.
The Conflict of Interest does not start when the problem starts. It starts when the potential for a problem starts. A DM playing both sides as the potential for a problem. Therefore the conflict of interest is present regardless of his intentions or feelings.



But there is an outcome that has an impact on the judge. This time a potential positive one. It is reasonable to assume that most people in that judge's position might be tempted to bend the results in his favor. With a DM there is no "in his favor" in the first place. If the DM doesn't care if the NPC succeeds or fails, then where is the "in his favor"
And if there is no prize for the judge outside of self-satisfaction?
What if the Judge is impartial entirely?
The potential to bend to his favor comes when be must both provide challenge AND Overcome challenge. He already has all the motivation necessary to want to bend rules because the goal of "overcome challenges" runs counter to the goal of "present and enforce challenges." This comes to the forefront when the chips are down and the party is going to be wiped if the DMPC doesn't come up with a clever plan. The DM knows what will work. But the DM must also be fair. At this point, of he does what will work his victory is cheapened because he designed the challenge. If he doesn't and the party is wiped, the party knows that he knew what would save them and, despite being on their team, decided not to do it. He cannot win because at its core there is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Also, by this logic the players also stand to gain nothing from play. So why do they waste their time? The DM in this conflict stands to gain everything the players do, in addition to what they already get.





I can't see your point because from my perspective it doesn't exist. There is nothing to see. I don't even know how to refute it, because there is nothing there.
Again, you're repeating again and again that the DMs personal stake is required for the Conflict of Interest. What I'm telling you is that the Conflict of Interest exists because of holding two directly opposing goals. I cannot both be a contestant and be a judge, even if I don't want to win. Because the conflict of interest between being both judge and contestant remains. It is not influenced by my personal feelings, but by THE POTENTIAL FOR MY PERSONAL FEELINGS TO BECOME DETRIMENTAL.
The POTENTIAL creates the conflict.
Saying "but the DM doesn't care" does not erase the conflict. The POTENTIAL for a problem to arise due to the conflicting interests remains, and thus the conflict remains.



the vast majority of my posts have said "a helpful NPC that regularly adventures with the PCs", or something of that nature. The point I've been arguing is that a NPC can easily be a part of the 'adventuring party', without becoming a problem, if handled properly.
I don't disagree with the general sentiment, but my idea of "handled properly" is to keep the dividing line between Player and GM as clear as possible.



and I see that as trivial and irrelevant, unless the DM has a stake in one of the sides succeeding. When the DM rolls for the monster he role plays "how can I smash the party". When the DM rolls for the NPC, he role plays "how can I smash the monster". It isn't hard.
"Those DMs just roleplay better."

This argument is tiresome.

Yes, apparently some human beings are capable of entirely compartmentalizing certain sections of knowledge from their brains and become 100% unbiased entities. They can argue both sides of a debate topic without any discomfort or problem, they live a life free from bias, and all things are good.
When one of these amazing humans plays a DMPC they are still playing both sides and there is still an inherent Conflict of Interest because they have two entirely opposing goals at the same time.

Aliquid
2017-06-14, 02:35 PM
Lots of stuffThese posts are getting long again, I'm starting over.

I'm not just disagreeing with you, I genuinely don't get where you are coming from with some of your comments. It makes no sense to me, but that might just be because of how you are phrasing things, and how I am interpreting it... rather than your intended meaning.

So I'm going to take this from a completely different angle. I'm going to try to phrase your argument in a way that makes sense to me.

I don't necessarily agree with the following argument, and it certainly isn't a direct quote of anything you said... but it is the only way I can express your argument in a way that makes sense to me.


When a DM starts viewing a NPC as "their character", and starts caring about the success/failure of that NPC, this can become a problem. It creates a conflict of interest and can lead to the DM misusing his power in favor of that character. Almost everyone in this thread appears to agree with this concept. Lets call this a "DMPC"

If a DM personally runs an NPC that always travels and adventures with the PCs, participates in challenges and obstacles with the PCs, levels up with the PCs.. etc. Then even if he doesn't intend to, the DM will very likely start viewing that NPC as his "DMPC", and will develop a conflict of interest.

Even if the DM assures everyone that this isn't the case, the potential is still there, and the perception is still there for the players, which will negatively impact their gaming experience.

Jay R
2017-06-14, 02:40 PM
Even if the DM is perfectly fair, if she gives her DMPC exactly the same abilities as any other player, if she never rules unfairly in the DMPC's favor, if she never unconsciously puts treasure in the hands of the monsters that would be perfect for the DMPC, there is still one power the DMPC has that the PCs never will.

The power of perfect communication.

1. The DM sometimes misunderstands what I want my PC to do, which can lead to a poor result. This never happens to a DMPC.

2. In the other direction, I sometime misunderstand the DM's description of the situation, leading me to have my PC do something stupid. Again, this can never happen to the DMPC.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-14, 03:00 PM
Something to keep in mind -- "conflict of interest" is not an action, it's a state. You don't have to actively do anything wrong for conflict of interest to exist, just be in a situation where your personal interests (whether you act on them or not) are in conflict with your duties / responsibilities.

For example -- this is why a public or elected official with financial interests in a company is supposed to recuse him/herself from decisions, business dealings legal cases, etc, having to do directly with that company.

I'm not going to declare a position one way or the other, because it's complicated, but there is an argument to be made that a GM with an actual PC in the game they are running, is in a state of conflicted interest. In part, it's complicated by honest disagreement over where to draw the line that determines the border between an NPC versus a GM's PC.

Quertus
2017-06-14, 03:08 PM
Something in this thread got my attention: rotating DMs. Games with them will have (some form of) DMPCs, because the DMs take turns being DMs and players. How are PCs handled in such cases, if handled any differently from regular PCs?

There are several answers to this question. That I have seen:

The DM can keep running his character as a DMPC.

The DM's character can mysteriously vanish while they are DM, only to reappear when they return to being a player.

Another player takes control of the DM's pc while they are DM.

Just like PCs of players who aren't there, the DMPC "ghosts out" while they are DM. They are there, but, functionally, they are not.


A definite negative to running a party ally is at higher levels, when there are just a lot more options to keep track of. In this case the DMPC can certainly become more burdensome on the DM, as the foes tend to be more complicated, that even a simply designed character can slow down game play. So at low levels, especially if the DM does some prep with the game mechanics, it probably shouldn't be a problem.

As to having players running a party ally, if it is not possible for a person to multi-task, why would it be possible for a non-DM person to do so. I personally have no problem if a player wants to run multiple characters, it just seems strange to suggest that the DM is not capable but the players are.

The amount of effort it takes a particular DM to run a particular DMPC is one valid problem of DMPCs. I can run epic level Quertus with almost no effort, but would struggle to run a competent 10th level thief. Like anything that the DM tries to take on that could be handled by the players, one must ask if that is truly the optimal solution.


The Conflict of Interest does not start when the problem starts. It starts when the potential for a problem starts. A DM playing both sides as the potential for a problem. Therefore the conflict of interest is present regardless of his intentions or feelings.

"Those DMs just roleplay better."

Do note that, by this logic, DMs cannot possibly run any NPCs as helpful, as the DM is inherently against the party. And DMs cannot possibly run both the BBEG and the rebels, as that would be a conflict of interest. And the DM cannot possibly run multiple sides of a political conflict, as that would be a conflict of interest. No, by this logic, the DM exists solely to provide challenges and opposition to the players / PCs, in the form of a monolithic opposed front, because anything else would be a conflict of interest. "The whole world is against us" is the only logical frame of mind for a PC.

Is that really what you want to be saying? Because that's what I'm hearing.

Tanarii
2017-06-14, 03:14 PM
Do note that, by this logic, DMs cannot possibly run any NPCs as helpful, as the DM is inherently against the party. And DMs cannot possibly run both the BBEG and the rebels, as that would be a conflict of interest. And the DM cannot possibly run multiple sides of a political conflict, as that would be a conflict of interest. No, by this logic, the DM exists solely to provide challenges and opposition to the players / PCs, in the form of a monolithic opposed front, because anything else would be a conflict of interest. "The whole world is against us" is the only logical frame of mind for a PC.

Is that really what you want to be saying? Because that's what I'm hearing.
1) Opposition is not antagonistic
2) Yes. The DM is in opposition to the PCs. So "the entire world is in opposition to my accomplishing my goals, and I must take action to change that" is completely logical for a PC.

Not only that, it's completely logical frame of mind for a person IRL too. The world opposes the you accomplishing your goals. You must take action to change that. They won't just happen on their own. If they did, you'd quickly come to see life as pointless and not try to do anything.

Edit: I just reread this, and realized I'm taking a very narrow view of 'opposition', which basically avoided your question re: DM conflict of interest in playing both 'helpful' and 'antagonistic' NPCs. Yeah, the DM has something of a conflict of interest there.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-14, 03:20 PM
Do note that, by this logic, DMs cannot possibly run any NPCs as helpful, as the DM is inherently against the party. And DMs cannot possibly run both the BBEG and the rebels, as that would be a conflict of interest. And the DM cannot possibly run multiple sides of a political conflict, as that would be a conflict of interest. No, by this logic, the DM exists solely to provide challenges and opposition to the players / PCs, in the form of a monolithic opposed front, because anything else would be a conflict of interest. "The whole world is against us" is the only logical frame of mind for a PC.

Is that really what you want to be saying? Because that's what I'm hearing.


I've read a couple of comments by different posters here that would at least seem to imply that the GM must exist in opposition to the players.

To which I offered the following alternative:



In terms of wanting the game to be fun and "constructive", the GM is (or should be) on the same side as the players.

The GM isn't "the other team", the GM is more or less the entirety of reality outside of the PCs -- the GM has to handle everything the players don't directly control. If everything that isn't the PCs is "the other team', you have a very malign reality for those PCs to overcome.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-14, 03:52 PM
1) Opposition is not antagonistic
2) Yes. The DM is in opposition to the PCs. So "the entire world is in opposition to my accomplishing my goals, and I must take action to change that" is completely logical for a PC.

Not only that, it's completely logical frame of mind for a person IRL too. The world opposes the you accomplishing your goals. You must take action to change that. They won't just happen on their own. If they did, you'd quickly come to see life as pointless and not try to do anything.

So taken to its logical conclusion... there are no NPCs who wants to see the PCs succeed, NPCs across the board neither share the PCs goals nor have ulterior motives for helping them? Every NPC stands in opposition to what the PCs wish to accomplish?

(Setting aside the philosophical rabbit-hole about whether an easy world would feel pointless...)

Tanarii
2017-06-14, 04:00 PM
So taken to its logical conclusion... there are no NPCs who wants to see the PCs succeed, NPCs across the board neither share the PCs goals nor have ulterior motives for helping them? Every NPC stands in opposition to what the PCs wish to accomplish?That's got nothing to do with if the world is entirely oppositional.

OTOH that's why I edited my post you quoted. Because that's not the question that was being asked.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-14, 04:10 PM
That's got nothing to do with if the world is entirely oppositional.


I'd ask then if the NPCs are not part of "the world"?

Or does this come down to setting-driven versus narrative-driven ways of thinking about "the world" of the game? Not sure where it came up before, but the simplified version of it would be "the setting exists, the characters exist within it, and opposition arises via circumstances and conflicting goals and so on" versus "the setting exists to provide opposition to the protagonists".




OTOH that's why I edited my post you quoted. Because that's not the question that was being asked.



Hmmm, let me see.. yeah, "opposition" covers a lot of ground.

pres_man
2017-06-14, 04:24 PM
I'd ask then if the NPCs are not part of "the world"?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/dc/d8/0d/dcd80df015e030a684c7bd4df726907f.jpg

Thrudd
2017-06-14, 04:35 PM
One of the DM's multiple roles is to provide opposition/challenge to the players. When the DM also helps them overcome those challenges, the players are being robbed of an important aspect of gameplay. The goal of Verisimilitude in the fictional world must be carefully balanced against this. An NPC should behave and have the appearance of an actual person in this world, and this is why their relationship with the PCs and the decision to include one at all must be considered from the game play angle as well as the story/world-building angle.

Talakeal
2017-06-14, 06:46 PM
Just play with some of my DMs, who admittedly I no longer play with. I've seen several DMPCs who could solo the party. This is why I always make a character who is amoral enough to just kill them as soon as they're helpless.

Every DM I have ever played with has just said "no," in a situation like that. Either "I don't allow PvP" or "I don't allow evil characters" or simply having a level 20 mage / cleric teleport in and cast power word kill on the aggressor and true resurrection on the victim an instant after than fact. All of these are actual things I have seen in game btw.

Ninja-Radish
2017-06-14, 08:32 PM
I'm playing a DMPC now in a 5E game, but that's because my group has a couple of guys who take turns as DM. When one of us is the DM, his character becomes a DMPC. That said, I do everything possible to downplay my character's importance when I'm the DM.

When I'm the sole GM in a game, I've only had the urge to play a DMPC once. That was in a 40k rpg, I wanted to play the medic (I'm a huge 40k fan). The group refused to let me, then they kept complaining they were getting injured too much. Serves them right lol.

ErebusVonMori
2017-06-14, 09:19 PM
Every DM I have ever played with has just said "no," in a situation like that. Either "I don't allow PvP" or "I don't allow evil characters" or simply having a level 20 mage / cleric teleport in and cast power word kill on the aggressor and true resurrection on the victim an instant after than fact. All of these are actual things I have seen in game btw.

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.

Talakeal
2017-06-14, 09:47 PM
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.

As I said, most DMPC's I have encountered have been upfront about it; the DM declares "I am going to be playing in the game as a PC and running the game as a DM at the same time," so that would count as clear PvP.

In the latter case, yeah, that would typically cause a player revolt, but in that case it was merely the DM "getting rid of the disruptive player (me)" and therefore the rest of the group supported him.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-14, 09:56 PM
Very much this, when you DM a game you're also playing with all the neurosis previous DMs left them with. I know a player who's first action entering a room is to always check the ceiling. Me, I kill DMPCs, it's one reason I play evil characters so I can justify killing a DMPC at the first opportunity, that probably says bad things about me, but it says just as much about the DMs that left me with that quirk.

That a DMPC has given me a game so bad that I now build into every character the option to kill it with minimal cognitive dissonance.

And that's one reason DMPCs are bad, cause bad DMing leads to bad (paranoid) players.

Now that's not actually because DMPCs are bad, but because they're usually paired with railroading, and killing the DMPC is an easy way to smash the rails (in my experience)



Just play with some of my DMs, who admittedly I no longer play with. I've seen several DMPCs who could solo the party. This is why I always make a character who is amoral enough to just kill them as soon as they're helpless.



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.


Wouldn't it work better if people just discussed these issues before campaign start, instead?

It would really suck if a GM had something interesting and novel and fun planned... and a player who thought of themselves as some sort of hardcore enforcer of gaming table "justice" took out a key NPC in error because they were determined to eliminate any and all possible "GMPCs".

I mean, the NPC could have been the incognito deposed ruler of a neighboring land who would have been around for a session or two, been grateful for your help, and later a key ally after they retook their throne. Or even would have offered you the McGuffin story seed to start off an epic adventure, in exchange for your help. Or maybe the GM just thought the players would have fun interacting with an interesting character for a session or two. But nope, potential "GMPC" -- they gotta die to make sure the past offenses of past GMs never happen again, right?


(Maybe my response is unfair, it's quite possible... but it's a response to how your posts are coming across, at least to me.)

RazorChain
2017-06-15, 12:06 AM
Wouldn't it work better if people just discussed these issues before campaign start, instead?

It would really suck if a GM had something interesting and novel and fun planned... and a player who thought of themselves as some sort of hardcore enforcer of gaming table "justice" took out a key NPC in error because they were determined to eliminate any and all possible "GMPCs".

I mean, the NPC could have been the incognito deposed ruler of a neighboring land who would have been around for a session or two, been grateful for your help, and later a key ally after they retook their throne. Or even would have offered you the McGuffin story seed to start off an epic adventure, in exchange for your help. Or maybe the GM just thought the players would have fun interacting with an interesting character for a session or two. But nope, potential "GMPC" -- they gotta die to make sure the past offenses of past GMs never happen again, right?


(Maybe my response is unfair, it's quite possible... but it's a response to how your posts are coming across, at least to me.)

I think often you see soon enough if it's a "bad" GMPC or not. Sometimes players want someone to bolster their ranks....this incidentally is most often a healbot or the token cleric. i try to avoid this by discussing this with the players and being liberal with healing items instead of including father McHealbot. Sometimes a NPC joins an adventure but usually this makes sense storywise but my usual GMPC is some poor schmuck the PLAYERS drag along for the longest time. Usually I just hand them the poor schmuck reins in combat and make them roll for him. I can't be bothered to play both sides of the table. If it's an important NPC I'll just declare what she/he does and make the players roll for the NPC, that way the players get a part of the gratifacation for pulling off something cool.

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-06-15, 02:42 AM
I think the problem can be reasonably summarized by an analogy. The way DMPC's can go wrong is the same way that sex scene from American Psycho goes wrong: when you're having several friends over but you're mostly busy playing with yourself, that's not what was supposed to happen.

Yes, I could have compared it to playing on your phone at a party instead. But this visual is more likely to stick.

RazorChain
2017-06-15, 03:11 AM
I think the problem can be reasonably summarized by an analogy. The way DMPC's can go wrong is the same way that sex scene from American Psycho goes wrong: when you're having several friends over but you're mostly busy playing with yourself, that's not what was supposed to happen.

Yes, I could have compared it to playing on your phone at a party instead. But this visual is more likely to stick.

Well put sir! Well put!

pres_man
2017-06-15, 09:58 AM
Wouldn't it work better if people just discussed these issues before campaign start, instead?

Exactly what I was thinking. Seems more reasonable to just tell the DM at the beginning that an NPC joining the party is a deal-breaker for you. If the DM is intend on doing it and the rest of the group is good with that, then the player should probably just bow out instead of back-stabbing the party ally and potentially alienating not only the DM but also all the other players.

Of course the player could also offer to play the heal-bot (if that is why the DM would have included a party ally) instead of the reality-bending power character they were going to play. Or perhaps they could offer to run the game instead of the DM and let that person get to play.

Mordar
2017-06-15, 07:07 PM
One of the DM's multiple roles is to provide opposition/challenge to the players. When the DM also helps them overcome those challenges, the players are being robbed of an important aspect of gameplay. The goal of Verisimilitude in the fictional world must be carefully balanced against this. An NPC should behave and have the appearance of an actual person in this world, and this is why their relationship with the PCs and the decision to include one at all must be considered from the game play angle as well as the story/world-building angle.

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?