Surprising experiences with an DMPC

[Trask]

In the collective imagination of the D&D community, ever since I got started, I've heard about DMPCs and how they are a cringe and eye-roll inducing inclusion to any game, either barely tolerated or actively protested. I've never actually seen one in practice until recently, and although the experience wasn't pleasant it didn't play out how I imagined.

Some short backstory; My friend runs a campaign for us set in Faerun and our characters end up killing Bhaal and splitting up his divine power between us to become demigods, campaign ends. One of those players wants to continue the campaign as a heavily sandboxed text-roleplay with our demigod characters acting as movers and shakers, big fish jumping into the big pond. The only problem is that he himself has a character from that campaign who is a demigod, and so he sort of squirrels him away as an exarch of Silvanus doing things behind the scenes as to not inadvertently play his own PC in the game he's running.

For a while this worked well and I never felt like this PC overshadowed us or even really participated at all. If anything, I thought he was a little too removed from events. But as the campaign has gone on (for about a year now) I've noticed an annoying tendency for my DM to set his PC apart from us in the way he speaks of him or acts towards our PCs, setting him up as somehow better than us for his lack of making any mistakes. Now the character was always a bit of a jerk, and I don't mind that this NPC is mean to us, but it creates a strain on the character to DM relationship when the DM's own character reminds or scolds us for our mistakes while his own character has never made any mistakes due to never really doing anything.

Clearly this is somewhat annoying, but while I didn't specifically start this thread looking for advice on "what to do", I find myself surprised at how it all played out and how long it took for me to realize that this was basically a DMPC before me, because it differs so much from the stereotypical version of events. The DMPC swoops in and grabs the glory, the best plot hooks, all the brightest moments are his for the taking. This DMPC is not present or even mentioned 90% of the time and has almost a negligible influence on the campaign and yet it still manages to chafe a bit.

The point of this post? Really just to tell a story or share an experience, but I think it could be read as cautionary for anyone thinking about employing a DMPC type character even in a background role seems to attract sour feeling.

[King of Nowhere]

heh. there are dmpcs and there are dmpcs.
some of them actually work and have a positive impact on the table. in this case, some people claim that they are not actually dmpcs.

my experience was on the other side. as a low level party, we were given as followers to an epic level dmpc. after a while we were imprisoned (railroad) while the dmpc escaped, and we thought we were fine; our daring prison escape was railroaded into failing, we were imprisoned again, until we were freed by another dmpc.
the whole campaign - what little of it we played, because it didn't last long - was various dmpcs figthing other high level threats while we watched and did stuff that were railroaded into irrelevance anyway.

[Silly Name]

my experience was on the other side. as a low level party, we were given as followers to an epic level dmpc. after a while we were imprisoned (railroad) while the dmpc escaped, and we thought we were fine; our daring prison escape was railroaded into failing, we were imprisoned again, until we were freed by another dmpc.
the whole campaign - what little of it we played, because it didn't last long - was various dmpcs figthing other high level threats while we watched and did stuff that were railroaded into irrelevance anyway.

Ah, the Avatar Trilogy! Bad times, bad times all around.

Joking aside, DMPCs have a bad rep (plausibly deserved) exactly because they often get used to strongarm the PCs into doing something. They may not even necessarily be of the spotlight-stealing type, but they can still interfere with the plot in ways players feel are forced and basically railroading. They are specifically DMPCs and not just NPCs because they butt into the narrative space of the PCs, interfering with their actions and choices more than is usually tolerated by players.

What you describe to me sounds a bit different because it's more of a case of the NPC being used to put down the PCs, as the sort of creator's pet that's always better than you in something. Some DMs may be able to pull off this and make it work as a way for the PCs to strive to best the NPC in question, but that necessitates that the PCs do have their advantages and victories recognised.

[Kraynic]

In my games there are basically 2 types of DMPC (that I can think of anyway):

1: Past characters that I have played, which don't join the party. Instead, I will use one of these characters as an employer, supplier, or catalyst for adventures. I might use one like this as the leader of a community or group the PCs need to interact with for some reason. I don't do this to show up the PCs, but to use a persona that I already understand and can run with little thought in response to whatever the PCs are doing/saying. I generally only use these past characters when they are likely to be recurring, but not at all a constant presence. In my experience so far, as long as these characters have their own (visible within the game) responsibilities, then players don't have a problem with them.

2: The somewhat helpless npc that joins the group to fill in some gap in the group (usually knowledge). In that case, that npc generally volunteers no info (to avoid this being the "voice of the DM"), and is always less powerful than PCs. For example, my most fun DMPC was a little gnome that was level 2 in 4 different classes, which gave her a wide range of knowledge (mostly in things magical, since the group was entirely mundane) but very little comparative power in a group of level 5 and 6 single class characters. When things got rough, this npc was taking care of the horses to make sure they didn't get stolen or run away, but had little to contribute to a fight compared to anyone else.

I see these as totally different from an NPC that is integral to something going on in the game (even if the players don't know until the moment it becomes important). I once had a deity traveling with the party in one of my games. This deity never broke character as the minstrel/story teller until the point in the game where there was something deity level that needed dealt with, and something the party needed to deal with simultaneously on the mortal level. I was quite proud that none of the players saw that coming, but I see that as a part of the adventure/campaign rather than a DMPC.

I think I have run a pretty charmed life, because I have actually never experienced a horrible GM. Inexperienced ones, yes, but none that weren't trying to run a good and fair game. While there may be sessions that I don't enjoy, I can't think of a single game where I didn't have fun overall.

[Batcathat]

In my games there are basically 2 types of DMPC (that I can think of anyway):

Personally, I wouldn't consider either of your examples a DMPC. I doubt there's a definition of the term that everyone can agree on, but to me a DMPC is pretty much exactly what it sounds like – the DM/GM's PC. A character that is their own and represents them the same way another PC represents a player. Having an NPC join the party long term, as in your second example, could be a warning flag for a DMPC but I don't think it makes one automatically.


I think I have run a pretty charmed life, because I have actually never experienced a horrible GM. Inexperienced ones, yes, but none that weren't trying to run a good and fair game. While there may be sessions that I don't enjoy, I can't think of a single game where I didn't have fun overall.

I feel the same way. I've certainly had some less then ideal GMs, players or sessions on occasion but nothing close to some of the stories I've heard from others.

[martixy]

"DMPC" is an awfully loaded term. It's a symptom rather than the root cause. If a DM's gotta railroad, he will find a way. In some sense I feel DMPCs get unfairly blamed.

On my end... I think I've played a DMPC, but I'm not sure. The character was optimized, was a regular member of the party, during all manner of shenanigans, including holding their own in combat and contributing their limited viewpoint in social situations. And not one of the players had any remarks to their participation. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Batcathat]

"DMPC" is an awfully loaded term. It's a symptom rather than the root cause. If a DM's gotta railroad, he will find a way. In some sense I feel DMPCs get unfairly blamed

That is true, but I don't think railroading is the only potential issue with DMPCs. Aside from the obvious risk of giving their own character too much spotlight and favorable treatment, there's the risk of splitting their attention, so they focus on "What should my character do?" rather than "What should happen?". Neither is guaranteed to happen, of course, but since I also don't really see any upsides to (my definition of) a DMPC, I prefer not to take the chance.

[Mastikator]

The only times I've heard someone describe a positive experience with a DMPC is when it's really just an NPC or cohort to a PC. I view DMPCs as a red flag that the forever-DM wants to be a player, and the players should (instead of just whining) consider taking up the mantle of DM and give the current DM a break. Or maybe have rotating DM duties.

[Trafalgar]

My question is always why does the DMPC exist?

If it is because the DM would rather be a player and injects the DMPC because of their own wants, I feel it is always doomed to failure. The DM should instead find a separate group where the DM can just be a player.

If it is because there are not enough PCs for the adventure, a DMPC can work with the right DM but only if the DM plays it right. The DMPC should be a little weaker than the rest of the party. In Tolkien terms, the DMPC should NOT be Gandalf (super powerful spellcaster) but could be Gimli (good melee warrior who isn't really involved in party decisions). A cleric who stays in the back row and buffs or heals the PCs is a viable DMPC role. But only if the DM plays it right and doesn't take away the player's agency.

I think there are better ways to correct balance issues than the DMPC, though.

[False God]

A "Good DM PC" IMHO is no different from a "Good PC". It's a character that is treated fairly(in terms of roleplay and reward), kept on par with the party, and generally useful. They are a participating member of the party. Their presence is not required any more than any other character is. (ie: a rogue is useful for lockpicking, but not mandatory) The they are "normal" relative to the rest of the party. (ie: if it's an all-human game, the DMPC is human, if it's an all-weirdos and mutants game, the DMPC is equally allowed to be those things.

A "Bad DM PC" is therefore, not those things. They get special rewards, they get extra XP. They always know the right answer. They are often higher level than the party. They are often paternalistic towards the party. They are often required for the party to proceed in a scene or situation.(ie: the door only responds to those who have the blood of Zeus, and oh look the DM PC is a half-angel half-werewolf half-succubs secret lovechild of Zeus and Satan). The bad DMPC is often "the special".

DMPCs who are plot devices aren't DMPCs, they're NPCs. Doesn't mean they can't be bad, but they, like a magic rock or funny artifact, exist to serve a function, not a party role. They're not an excuse for the DM to get a little playtime in. They don't need to follow any of the rules above, only the rule for all McGuffins: once they're done they're done. Continuing to invent needs for them is what can lead to problems.

-------
I've had good DMPC experiences and bad DMPC experiences. 3/5 of my playgroup are DMs, it's a small town so we rotate through who's running, and most of us run a DMPC. I generally advise DMs who want to have a DM PC to have their character take a back seat. Don't invalidate the character's agency in the group, just generally let the party take the lead.

I personally find running a DMPC for a full group (4-5 people) too time consuming to treat the character fairly and also engage the rest of the group adequately.

[Jay R]

... I've noticed an annoying tendency for my DM to set his PC apart from us in the way he speaks of him or acts towards our PCs, setting him up as somehow better than us for his lack of making any mistakes.

This is not the worst problem of DMPCs, but it might be the most common.

The DMPC's player never misunderstands the description of the environment.
The DMPC's player never gets a false idea about the foes.
The DMPC's player never misses the one crucial fact in the situation.
The DMPC's player never spends time working out a plan that simply cannot work.
The DMPC's player never forgets the detail from three sessions ago that is necessary to solve today's puzzle.
The DMPC's player is never given the wrong idea by an NPC's lie, or confused by a poor description.
The DMPC's player knows the fact the the DM thought he told us but accidentally skipped.
The DMPC's player never fails to explain to the DM what his character is trying to do.

In short, there is always perfect communication between the DMPC's player and the DM.

That person is simply not playing the same game we are, and is protected from many of the mistakes we make because of our miscommunication or faulty memory of a crucial fact.

Of course he's somehow better than us, and doesn't make the same mistakes we make.

Not because the DM is trying to be unfair.
Not because the DMPC's player is trying to be unfair.

Simply because that player alone has perfect communication with the DM, and always knows which fact is relevant.

[martixy]

~

Keep in mind there do EXIST people who are capable of consciously and deliberately applying theory of mind to their characters.

[Trafalgar]

Keep in mind there do EXIST people who are capable of consciously and deliberately applying theory of mind to their characters.

I've never met one.

[SimonMoon6]

These discussions of DMPCs always seem strange to me because back in my gaming heyday, my gaming group would alternate running different games (and we might play several games on the same day) and almost every game would have a DM-run PC-type NPC. But they were always treated as NPCs who are there to help, never the focus of the adventure. I think the reason that there were so many such characters is that a lot of games were "self-insert" games, so it would have been very weird for all of the gaming group except one guy to suddenly be the PCs of the campaign.

Like, there was a superhero game, where our secret identities were ourselves. And the GM was one of the heroes in the group. But he didn't suggest what to do or anything. He wasn't the most powerful person. He wouldn't solve puzzles. He didn't save the day. He was just there. One of the players once misunderstood (or deliberately acted as if he did) and, in a belligerent mood, tried to just follow this NPC to the where the villain must be hiding... but that didn't work because the NPC didn't know anything more than the other PCs did.

Or, in my longest running D&D game, I noticed that the PCs didn't have a cleric, so I made a gnome cleric/illusionist character as a supporting character for the group. And then another player joined and made a cleric, so the gnome didn't have much purpose, but he was still there. Eventually, one of the PCs took over the role of deciding this NPC's spell choices and combat actions, making things easier for me, so I guess this NPCs ended up becoming more of a half-NPC (I controlled his non-combat actions) and half-PC.

In my longest running game ever (a multi-genre self-insert game), I may have accidentally subverted the DMPC trope by having the DMPC become the campaign's main villain for a while. Does that even count?

In my second-best multi-genre self-insert game, though, the DMPC was a normal NPC... helpful, with abilities that the PCs might not have, but not ever taking the spotlight.

In a "testing 3.0 D&D" self-insert game, a DMPC again was present and I even offered to take him off the table, but the PCs wanted him around. The only time he may have seemed to have negative DMPC qualities was when the other PCs were KO-ed and the DMPC seemed to miraculously save the party... but it's just how the dice fell, not because of any favoritism.

I know I'm mostly listing games I myself have run, but that's because (a) I ran a *lot* more games than the others did and (b) these are the games I remember the most. Also, these games tended to last the longest, so they are easier to remember.

Basically, in my gaming group, we understood that DMPCs could occur, but that DM's wouldn't treat them as anything special. They would just be NPCs that the DM got to run as if they were PCs, but with no special advantages... in fact, they were often very limited as they would NEVER be the ones to figure out puzzles or do anything else clever.

I guess it's just a matter of who you game with.

[JNAProductions]

I'll definitely echo the general trend of "DMPCs are usually bad for the table, for various reasons."

But I do recall another poster on this forum saying they were at a table with several DMPCs, and everyone was having a grand ol' time. Doesn't mean DMPCs should be included for most tables, but it shows that the rule is only a general rule, not a universal. If it works for your table, great! Have fun! But as general advice, no DMPCs is still good.

[Lapak]

I mean, there's a certain amount of 'No True Scotsman' in this thread where the DMPC is defined as specifically the kind that causes problems, but I don't think that's entirely unfair.

For my money, I think the best thing I did back in my 2e days when we had a short-handed group and I added a character to the party as the DM to round it out was that I didn't add a character to the party. I created a stable of, IIRC, 4 recurring NPCs that rotated in and out of the party on a quest-related basis. The party would resolve that issue, then 'my' character would go their own way and the party would start the next adventure without a fill-in. But at some point early in the next adventure, they'd either meet a new NPC for the first time who had a reason to go along or, once the DM/PC 'cast' was established, re-encounter someone they'd already adventured with before. Sometimes because they were involved with the situation somehow, in other cases just because their roving-adventurer lifestyle had caused them to cross paths again. That seemed to strike an okay balance where the DM character was present but not the center or driver of the overall plot - the regular switching-out meant they couldn't be. And the players seemed to enjoy meeting 'old friends' again when one came back.

The limited screen-time per character meant they stayed sketched-out a bit, but that was kind of a good thing. It kept me from taking too much spotlight OR having a personality-free null sitting at the back of the party and firing arrows or Cure spells or whatever.

[Jay R]

Keep in mind there do EXIST people who are capable of consciously and deliberately applying theory of mind to their characters.

That may be true. But even if it's true, for every one who can, there are 100 who believe they can. Further, I am wary of the unconscious and non-deliberate parts.

More importantly, that doesn't change the fact that the DMPC's player isn't trying to solve the riddle, isn't trying to unravel the clues, isn't trying to figure out what's going on. He already knows what the party is trying to figure out.

He knows which sword is cursed. Maybe he decides that his character would pick up an uncursed one; maybe he decides that his character would pick up the cursed one. Either way, he decided. Or he rolled a die. Either way, he is not doing what I'm doing when I try to avoid a curse with incomplete information.

Let's say the halfling servant with us is really the red dragon we're hunting, in a polymorphed form. Obviously, the DMPC's player already knows that. In that case:
a. He is not actually taking part in our quest to find the dragon.
b. I can try to decide which facts we see are important clues and which are meaningless. That's the meat of the game -- making decisions for my character and trying to figure out what we don't know. The DMPC's player cannot do that.
c. Maybe five sessions back, we were told that the dragon uses Polymorph a lot. I can try to remember what we've heard about her, and figure out that she might be with us. The DMPC's player cannot go through that process.
c. I can slowly figure out that we are being watched, decide to use True Seeing, and thus discover that she is the dragon. He can't. Whether he chooses to do it or not, his choice to use True Seeing is not based on putting together clues.
d. When the Fireball attack comes, he's expecting it. Whether he chooses to stand away from the party to not get caught in it, or decides that his character wouldn't know that and stays there in danger, he didn't do what real players do -- try to make the best decision he is capable of.

He just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us.

Thought experiment: in a game with no DMPC, one player reads all the DM's notes in advance. That player has an unfair advantage. Whether she is capable of choosing not to use the information, she has it, and has an unfair advantage. [Also, if she is trying to be fair, an unfair [I]DISadvantage. She cannot try to put together the clues like the rest of us can.]

I ran a DMPC once. Never again. For important decisions, I would roll dice. When we were given a chance to eat a mushroom that we were told would give each character a +1 CON, I had another player decide if my character would eat it. Eventually, I realized that I couldn't make any important decision. I wasn't really playing the character at all.

Oh, I could decide the trivial stuff -- what weapon to draw, what spell to cast, which opponent to attack. So it was sort of like having a character during melee. But for the real game -- making plans, putting together clues, exploring the world -- I couldn't play him at all. Because the essence of playing a character is trying to make the best possible choice, based on incomplete information.

In any event, my main point in the post you replied to stands, untouched by your comment:

"In short, there is always perfect communication between the DMPC's player and the DM.

"That person is simply not playing the same game we are, and is protected from many of the mistakes we make because of our miscommunication or faulty memory of a crucial fact."

I've had plans fail miserably, simply because I didn't communicate successfully to the DM what the plan was. I have also gotten in trouble because I misunderstood what the DM was saying.

This cannot happen with the DMPC's player, even if they are "capable of consciously and deliberately applying theory of mind to their characters".

Feel free to play with DMPCs. You have the right to have fun your way.

I will continue to refuse to play in a game with a DMPC. I have the right to have my fun my way.

[Silly Name]

I have to agree with Jay R's assesment on the troubles with playing a DMPC. I sometimes control tag-along characters (cohorts, allies, pets, etc) because my players have a tendency to fill in their ranks by recruiting NPCs, and that means being very deliberate in how I run them, and I have to force myself to play them in a way that's not "solve the problem for the players". Even in combat I sometimes second-guess myself on what the character should be doing: should they target the most dangerous enemy, or leave that for the PCs and instead focus on support?

[martixy]

That may be true. But even if it's true, for every one who can, there are 100 who believe they can. Further, I am wary of the unconscious and non-deliberate parts.

I will agree to that. It is one case where a certain aspect of DMing requires a particular expertise in acting.
I won't attempt to be as polite as you - people ARE different and most definitely do not have what it takes to play a decent DMPC. So a default stance of "DMPC=bad" is useful.

But it's clear that Jay R's worldview is colored against DMPCs and so I won't even try to convince him. But maybe the examples I give might help others.


More importantly, that doesn't change the fact that the DMPC's player isn't trying to solve the riddle, isn't trying to unravel the clues, isn't trying to figure out what's going on. He already knows what the party is trying to figure out.

He knows which sword is cursed. Maybe he decides that his character would pick up an uncursed one; maybe he decides that his character would pick up the cursed one. Either way, he [I]decided. Or he rolled a die. Either way, he is not doing what I'm doing when I try to avoid a curse with incomplete information.

It's true, handling information is one of the trickier aspects of playing a DMPC, but whereas you see a problem, I see opportunity. Say I was playing a DMPC.
I'd be thinking - what would be more dramatic here. Could I do something interesting if I picked up the sword? Or would it be more dramatic to let one of the other PCs pick it up?

Even riddles, as unsalvageable as they seem, are another opportunity. While the rest of the PCs are trying figure out the riddle itself, you might reason how it looks from your character's perspective - this type of putting yourself in another's shoes is a cognitive skill that benefits from practice, just like reading or playing a musical instrument or solving a math problem. Or stay out of it, if you're feeling lazy. Or feed your party misinformation that will lead to interesting results. TBH this is no different that how you'd play any other NPC.


He just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us.

No, he is not. A DM fundamentally has a different goal in playing the game that the other players. He is still a player in the game however. (Tangential, but I feel this is a point waaaaaay too many people fail to take into consideration.)


I ran a DMPC once. Never again. For important decisions, I would roll dice. When we were given a chance to eat a mushroom that we were told would give each character a +1 CON, I had another player decide if my character would eat it. Eventually, I realized that I couldn't make any important decision. I wasn't really playing the character at all.

I'll be honest, that just sounds like refusing to take responsibility out of fear.

"In short, there is always perfect communication between the DMPC's player and the DM."
-- You see a problem, I see opportunity.

"That person is simply not playing the same game we are, [...]"
-- Nor should they.


I've had plans fail miserably, simply because I didn't communicate successfully to the DM what the plan was. I have also gotten in trouble because I misunderstood what the DM was saying.
That's a bug, not a feature. As a player I freaking hate having things go south just because I misheard something the DM said. As a DM, I try to be as clear as possible. My group generally takes great pains to avoid (and correct) misunderstandings.




Even in combat I sometimes second-guess myself on what the character should be doing: should they target the most dangerous enemy, or leave that for the PCs and instead focus on support?

Sounds like that character is missing the, uh... "character" part. Is he a coward, where all he could muster up the courage for is support on the fringes of battle? Is he a brash and hot-headed brawler that will single out the biggest, baddest looking enemy and challenge them? Or is he a chessmaster, who will stop before engaging and try to reason out what the biggest threat on the enemy is, or what the weakest link of the enemy composition is.


The impression many of you leave is that often the FEAR of being having a DMPC is so strong, it makes you overcompensate HARD in the other direction and play these characters even LESS than you would any other NPC. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[False God]

I have to agree with Jay R's assesment on the troubles with playing a DMPC. I sometimes control tag-along characters (cohorts, allies, pets, etc) because my players have a tendency to fill in their ranks by recruiting NPCs, and that means being very deliberate in how I run them, and I have to force myself to play them in a way that's not "solve the problem for the players". Even in combat I sometimes second-guess myself on what the character should be doing: should they target the most dangerous enemy, or leave that for the PCs and instead focus on support?

In my case at least, my experience with "recruitable NPCs" tends to be that players treat them poorly, and expect me to role-play them anyway, while at the same time, remaining keeping them subserviant to the players. I won't do the latter and I'm not keen on the former, or the middle really, and that often makes my players unhappy.

But I'm happy to provide them with a DMPC who is generally helpful, while remaining their own person. I tend to notice they get much better treatment than "the help".

Otherwise they're welcome to take a class that provides some form of "pet", not that the pet might not get pissed too if its poorly treated, but that element of the class is primarily under the players purview, not mine, which again, IME, players tend to treat with more respect since that pet is "their stuff", not borrowed from the DM.

[Batcathat]

I won't attempt to be as polite as you - people ARE different and most definitely do not have what it takes to play a decent DMPC. So a default stance of "DMPC=bad" is useful.

I agree with your observation, but not with your conclusion. Yes, some people can play DMPCs without issue but since most can not – at least not all the time – why risk it? I don't see any advantage to a DMPC over a "normal" NPC that make all the potential downsides worth it.

Though I suppose it might come down to different definitions of the term, since what some people have described as DMPCs in this thread, I would just call NPCs.

[Foeofthelance]

I agree with your observation, but not with your conclusion. Yes, some people can play DMPCs without issue but since most can not – at least not all the time – why risk it? I don't see any advantage to a DMPC over a "normal" NPC that make all the potential downsides worth it.

Though I suppose it might come down to different definitions of the term, since what some people have described as DMPCs in this thread, I would just call NPCs.

I'm going to chime in and build off that - one of the things I think the discussion leaves out is that the DM is a player as well. We're not simply fonts of rules, world building, and combat referees, we're actively trying to enjoy the game as well. But you're almost never going to see a good DM or a well run game inspire a forum post. You only generally hear about the ones who cause problems, just as you only ever hear about players who cause problems. In my opinion, I would expect the same people who run so-called DMPCs to be the same people who if they were on the other side of the screen would be trying to force the game to focus on their PC over the rest of the party. So what actually separates an NPC from a DMPC? I'll offer up one of my own as an example.

Brother Botheal is the Cleric I run with my players. He was rolled up following the same rules they were given. He has a back story, involving being the third child of a moderately wealthy noble family who was appropriately sent to take holy orders. He joined the Church and has taken vows of silence, poverty, and nonagression. (His equipment, while equivalent to the party's, is still technically Church property. They will expect it back should anything unfortunate happen to him.) While he will not say a word, he has quill and parchment to provide advice or simply snark at anyone snarking at him; while he won't hit anyone or anything first, he's more than willing to lay a hammer down in self defense. He follows along with the characters, has his own spot in the initiative order, has to make skill checks and saving throws. I could take him into almost any other 5th edition game with only a few minor tweaks and rolls to catch him up to speed as my own PC

So is he a DMPC or an NPC?

[Batcathat]

I'm going to chime in and build off that - one of the things I think the discussion leaves out is that the DM is a player as well. We're not simply fonts of rules, world building, and combat referees, we're actively trying to enjoy the game as well.

That is true, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion at hand. I suppose some GM might enjoy the game more having DMPCs but it's certainly no requirement. I love making characters and one of the things I like about being the GM is that I get to create tons of them. I don't need a PC, I have all the NPCs I could ever want.


So is he a DMPC or an NPC?

A little hard to tell by your description, since my definition has more to do with how the GM treats and relates to the character rather than what the character is. I'd say... probably DMPC, maybe?

[martixy]

I agree with your observation, but not with your conclusion. Yes, some people can play DMPCs without issue but since most can not – at least not all the time – why risk it? I don't see any advantage to a DMPC over a "normal" NPC that make all the potential downsides worth it.

Though I suppose it might come down to different definitions of the term, since what some people have described as DMPCs in this thread, I would just call NPCs.

Wait, hold on. Explain to me how you're disagreeing there.

[Eldan]

I was once more or less forced into making a DMPC by the party .

Let me explain. We were playing a fan adventure for Planescape called Desire and the Dead, which is still one of my favourite adventures to this day. The party... well, let's say they consisted of four very large hams. Not a grain of subtlety between them. Lots of charisma and magical power, though, very outgoing personalities, it was a lot of fun.

Anyway, there's this small-ish side character in the adventure called Lord Winsome. Or at least, that's what he calls himself. He's a Quasit (minor demon) familiar of a mage who died, who is currently out of a job. He hangs around in a ruin and can be bartered with for some medium-importance information the party might want before heading deeper into the ruins. One of the things he rather desperately wants is to become the familiar of some new mage, so he has a legit reason not to return to the Abyss. He's also good at disguising himself and lying, appearing only as a talking Raven, so the party doesn't initially know he's a demon.

So, the party loved him unreservedly. Three players all wanted him as a familar. They all immediately understood he was super shifty, but he was useful, quite a bit more powerful than your standard familiar and, because he signed a favourable contract, he had a bit more agency than you'd normally assume from a familiar, too. And despite me tryign to play him as basically a magical slimy car salesman, they found him loveable.

And then... they just started relying on him way too much. None of them had any stealth, so they'd send him to do all their scouting. They basically didn't go anywhere anymore without first saying "Winsome, turn invisible, fly over there and tell us what you see". And he also had some divinations (that he would twist when tellign the information to the party), which they started to rely on. And he of course knew the city of Sigil better than all of them, since had lived there for years and years, so they started asking him for advice about everything.

They basically started handing over all initiative to his original side character. I eventually felt I had to have him betray the party at a critical moment, just so they'd stop letting him make all the decisions. They were quite sad about it, too.

[Batcathat]

Wait, hold on. Explain to me how you're disagreeing there.

I might have misunderstood you, but I assumed you were in favor of (some) DMPCs despite the problems, while I am not (since I don't really see any upside to them).

[Foeofthelance]

That is true, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion at hand. I suppose some GM might enjoy the game more having DMPCs but it's certainly no requirement. I love making characters and one of the things I like about being the GM is that I get to create tons of them. I don't need a PC, I have all the NPCs I could ever want.

The point being that the person running the "DMPC" likely needs to feel the spotlight on them to enjoy the game and just may not be suited for a spot behind the screen anymore than someone who is five feet flat probably isn't going to make a good point guard in the NBA. But rather than focusing on why they're running the game badly, the discussion focuses on how they are running the game badly. leading to the idea that any time a character joins the party beyond the level of a talking pack mule its a warning sign of a bad DM.



A little hard to tell by your description, since my definition has more to do with how the GM treats and relates to the character rather than what the character is. I'd say... probably DMPC, maybe?

Bolded the part of emphasis because we're pretty much in agreement, but now I'd like to expand on the questions. Why assign that particular label? The back story? The personality? Or because he could be pulled out of his game and used as a PC in another? Would he have gotten the same tag if I had described him as Brother Healbot, the faithful cleric minion who obediently follows the party around throwing out all the healing spells they could need, never gets in the way one of them gloriously defeating the boss, never takes a share of the treasure, and conveniently disappears any time there's a dialogue scene to be had in order to allow them to drive the story themselves?

Because my thought as DM is that pretty much any character should have a backstory and a personality, but the more screen time they have with the PCs the more detailed they should be. Its one thing to wing out the woe of Fisherman McGruff, who lost his sons in a storm nigh these eight years ago, whose daughter ran off to become a paladin, and whose wife got drunk and burned down his boat the last night entirely off the cuff because the PCs aren't likely going to encounter him again. But if my players decide they all want to roll squishy wizard types, then Bjorn Beefshield the Barbarian Bodyguard they hire on to attract all the pointy bits of metal being waved their way is going to need an equal level background with his own history, goals, and motivations for no other reason than to avoid breaking immersion. This isn't Skyrim where eventually his dialogue tree is eventually going to run out of options; he needs to be able to participate for as long as the party wants him around.

[Ettina]

I agree with your observation, but not with your conclusion. Yes, some people can play DMPCs without issue but since most can not – at least not all the time – why risk it? I don't see any advantage to a DMPC over a "normal" NPC that make all the potential downsides worth it.

You're not playing with most DMs. You're playing with one specific DM.

I've heard the horror stories about DMPCs. I've also played many games featuring DMPCs who greatly added to my enjoyment of the game. The difference? The horror stories were other DMs, the good experiences were with my DM. He happens to be really good at playing DMPCs well. Since I know that, and since he knows he's gotten good feedback about his DMPCs, we don't hesitate to plan campaigns where he's DMing and playing a PC at the same time.

[False God]

You're not playing with most DMs. You're playing with one specific DM.

I've heard the horror stories about DMPCs. I've also played many games featuring DMPCs who greatly added to my enjoyment of the game. The difference? The horror stories were other DMs, the good experiences were with my DM. He happens to be really good at playing DMPCs well. Since I know that, and since he knows he's gotten good feedback about his DMPCs, we don't hesitate to plan campaigns where he's DMing and playing a PC at the same time.

I don't understand why people put such a high burden on DMs and DMPCs.

We've all heard and experienced horror stories of other players right? And, mathematically speaking there are what, 4-5 times as many players as there are DMs right? You've got a far higher chance of running into a horrible player who ruins a game than you ever do a DM or DMPC.

A new player and a new DM are no different. You don't know anything about them. Both are equally capable of ruining a game.

Noone is playing with "most DMs". Some people may have played with "several" or "many" or "a lot", but noone has come close to most. And yes, I'm going to make that absolute statement because with an estimated 13 million active D&D players alone, 1/4th of that number is 3.25 million. So yes, noone has played with most (lets say, 60%, a solid majority or 1.95M) DMs.

[Batcathat]

I've heard the horror stories about DMPCs. I've also played many games featuring DMPCs who greatly added to my enjoyment of the game. The difference? The horror stories were other DMs, the good experiences were with my DM. He happens to be really good at playing DMPCs well. Since I know that, and since he knows he's gotten good feedback about his DMPCs, we don't hesitate to plan campaigns where he's DMing and playing a PC at the same time.

Out of curiosity, why is it a good experience? I don't doubt a good GM can avoid the usual issues of a DMPC, but as I mentioned earlier I don't really understand the point to them, whether from a player or GM perspective.

[SimonMoon6]

Out of curiosity, why is it a good experience? I don't doubt a good GM can avoid the usual issues of a DMPC, but as I mentioned earlier I don't really understand the point to them, whether from a player or GM perspective.

From the perspective of the GM: The GM wants to play a game, just like all the players do. If you can imagine why the players would want to play a game, then you can understand why the GM wants to play the exact same game. And, sure, you can say "Just play a game when someone else is the GM" but that may not be a feasible possibility. I know in my old gaming circle, I was almost always the GM since everybody wanted me to be the GM (or nobody else wanted to be the GM or a combination of both). And even if other people would want to run games that other people would want to play... it wouldn't be the same game. I know that most of the games I have run have been fairly unique to the point that nobody else would ever run a game like that (and a player once commented when people were considering other games to run, "Well we don't need ANOTHER game like that since we've already played that game"), so it would be absolutely impossible to play in that sort of game when someone else is the GM. So, in order to play in the best game ever (which is, of course, whatever game I choose to run), the only way to make that happen is to have a DMPC. And, yeah, it's not quite the same thing as actually playing as a player, but it's the closest you can get to perfection (by which I mean playing in the best game ever... and by "best game ever", I mean any game that I run). And if this is the closest that I can get to perfection, then I'm definitely going to want to take advantage of that possibility.

From the perspective of a player: Hey, there's another person in the group. Hurray!

That's pretty much it.

Assuming you don't already have a ridiculous number of players in the group, another PC is almost always a good thing. Like, you wouldn't run a game with only one PC, and it's kind of risky to try it with just two PCs... sometimes you just need the right number of PCs for a game to function. With only one PC, a single critical hit from an enemy could mean a TPK. And with two PCs, it's not that much further away. And sometimes the extra PC can fill in a gap in abilities, like if the group doesn't have a cleric but the extra PC is a cleric, well, that's just perfect.

[Batcathat]

From the perspective of the GM: The GM wants to play a game, just like all the players do.

I guess I just don't understand that part. A GM is playing a game, just not the exact same one as the players. As I think I mentioned earlier, one of the things I love about GM:ing is that I get to create and play so many different characters.

It's understandable if a GM sometimes wants to be a player (especially if they're always the GM) but having a DMPC doesn't really accomplish that as I see it, they still do all the GM stuff even if they have a character "of their own" on top of that, with all the potential complications brought up in this thread.

But hey, if it makes your GM happy and the players are fine with it, go for it. I just don't really see the point of it myself.

[martixy]

I guess I just don't understand that part. A GM is playing a game, just not the exact same one as the players. As I think I mentioned earlier, one of the things I love about GM:ing is that I get to create and play so many different characters.

It's understandable if a GM sometimes wants to be a player (especially if they're always the GM) but having a DMPC doesn't really accomplish that as I see it, they still do all the GM stuff even if they have a character "of their own" on top of that, with all the potential complications brought up in this thread.

But hey, if it makes you GM happy and the players are fine with it, go for it. I just don't really see the point of it myself.

That's also what I was arguing. GMs are playing the game too. Just a different sort of game.

I think what differentiates a DMPC from an NPC is hitting certain notes in the game, about participating in the party's shenanigans.

DMPCs are more constrained in this type of play, since they're fundamentally incompatible with many knowledge-based activities (the most stark example being puzzles). Though they are still possible. You can always ask another player to bring a puzzle or something.

Apart from that, being able to take the spotlight, share in a victory, argue with other players about a plan, do stupid shiz, gleefully watch said stupid plan go up in flames around them. That's kind of the player experience, and you can totally have that on the DM side, as long as you don't succumb to irrational attachments to your character or plan or plot point. Players know that failure is always an option, and as long as the DM doesn't abuse his position of narrative power to skirt or force outcomes, everyone will likely have a good time.

[Ettina]

Out of curiosity, why is it a good experience? I don't doubt a good GM can avoid the usual issues of a DMPC, but as I mentioned earlier I don't really understand the point to them, whether from a player or GM perspective.

Firstly, note that most of the time when I've had a DMPC in my party, it's been a duet campaign - ie just me and the DM. So my options have been to have a solo PC, play multiple PCs myself, or have a DMPC with me. Each option has its upsides and downsides, but focusing on the DMPC one, the benefits have been:

Having a fun character to play with that I'm not creating myself.

Playing off of that character for my own RP (RP flows better when you're not RPing both sides, and RP with a party member is very different from RP with a character who isn't part of your party).

Getting assistance with fights - although the DM can adjust difficulty for a solo PC, some builds have trouble handling some challenges in a fun way. For example, my first DMPC experience was a monster campaign where I played an illithid psion and he played a troll fighter, and squishy caster can be a lot more fun with a big meat-shield protecting you. Especially since this was 3.5 and I focused on mind-affecting powers.

I have also played with DMPCs in non-duet campaigns, too, and that didn't have as much benefits, but it was still pretty fun because the characters were fun to play with. The one I really remember was an awakened giant constrictor snake who liked eating our enemies, and who ended up being friends with my necromancer because he decided to curry favor with her to make sure she never wanted to eat him. He soon found that she was also just good company, when he needed a break from the chaos of the rest of the party.

Generally, the best DMPC is a character who has fairly simple motivations and a tendency to be a follower. Meatshields and healers are the best builds for DMPCs. You don't need to agonize over whether they'll know how to solve a puzzle as much as some of the people in this thread, but it's best not to have them take the lead in most situations. In general, give the PCs a chance to solve the problem themselves, and if they're struggling, have the DMPC be the mouthpiece for a hint. (Even if it's an Int 6 guy going "what does this button do?" rather than them actually figuring out anything.) Plot-wise, have them be a supporting character - at most, they can be as plot-relevant as the PCs, but it's often good to make them have much less importance to the plot. For example, with the illithid and troll campaign, the main plot was focused on my illithid's former hive wanting to hunt xem down to enact revenge, and the troll was just an orphan I adopted along the way.

In my experience, the biggest problem with DMPCs has been just the mental load on the DM of playing a PC while also DMing. DMing is already a lot to keep track of, and PCs are generally more complicated to play than most NPC statblocks. My one foray into running my own DMPC was a full spellcaster, since that's my favorite character archetype, but that was a huge mistake. Even the troll's regeneration only happened about half the time because we kept forgetting he had it - when the same guy who ran that DMPC ran a troll PC later on with me DMing, it was a lot easier for him to remember to heal his PC every round.

And in my experience, even if you don't plan on building a DMPC, there's a decent chance you might stumble into one. Especially with a solo PC, but even parties have a tendency to latch onto NPCs and convince them to join the party, and the distinction between "NPC who's part of the party" and "DMPC" can get very blurry. So I think knowing how to do a DMPC well would be useful for any DM whose PCs like to invite NPCs to come with them.

[MoiMagnus]

What is a DMPC is linked to what is a PC. There is a set of things that make a PC:

(1) Being controlled by a (non-GM) player.
(2) Being built using PC rules.
(3) The PC is part of the "team of PCs", meaning that it is an ally in most encounters (and share XP & co with the other members of the team).
(4) The controller has a sense of ownership over their character. They're not just piloting the character, they have creative control over the character. This include some level of player agency.
(5) The PC is at the center of the narrative. While the world is likely not about them, the story told along the gaming sessions is.

For DMPC, (1) is clearly off the table, (2) is not necessary but one have to be careful to still remain "fair", and (5) seems to be the source of most DMPC horror stories.

[Batcathat]

(1) Being controlled by a (non-GM) player.
(2) Being build using PC rules.
(3) The PC is part of the "team of PCs", meaning that it is an ally in most encounters (and share XP & co with the other members of the team).
(4) The controller has a sense of ownership over their character. They're not just piloting the character, they have creative control over the character. This include some level of player agency.
(5) The PC is at the center of the narrative. While the world is likely not about them, the story told along the gaming sessions is.

Interesting list. I think my definition of DMPC has most to do with number four. If there's a difference between an NPC, no matter how important, and a DMPC it's that, that the GM has a sense of ownership over the character they don't have for the other characters in the game.

You're probably right that number five is the source of a lot of the problems with DMPCs, but to be fair a lot of those problems aren't exclusive to DMPCs (at least not my definition of the term). I think all GMs have experience with creating a villain so cool that you kinda don't want the PCs to defeat them or made a minor NPC so interesting that you just want to explore them in greater detail. Giving in to those temptations can cause a lot of the same problems (specifically with stealing the narrative focus) as a DMPC, I think.

[Mastikator]

What is a DMPC is linked to what is a PC. There is a set of things that make a PC:

(1) Being controlled by a (non-GM) player.
(2) Being built using PC rules.
(3) The PC is part of the "team of PCs", meaning that it is an ally in most encounters (and share XP & co with the other members of the team).
(4) The controller has a sense of ownership over their character. They're not just piloting the character, they have creative control over the character. This include some level of player agency.
(5) The PC is at the center of the narrative. While the world is likely not about them, the story told along the gaming sessions is.

For DMPC, (1) is clearly off the table, (2) is not necessary but one have to be careful to still remain "fair", and (5) seems to be the source of most DMPC horror stories.

I'd like a slight amendment to (5). The PC is a protagonist of the story/narrative. Reoccurring villains are also central to the narrative but are definitely not DMPCs. At least not intentionally:smallwink:

[Batcathat]

I'd like a slight amendment to (5). The PC is a protagonist of the story/narrative. Reoccurring villains are also central to the narrative but are definitely not DMPCs. At least not intentionally:smallwink:

True, it's not that villains or other NPCs can't ever be central to the narrative, just that they shouldn't take up too much of it (though how much is "too much" is obviously hard to say for sure).

[Ettina]

You're probably right that number five is the source of a lot of the problems with DMPCs, but to be fair a lot of those problems aren't exclusive to DMPCs (at least not my definition of the term).

It's a pretty common issue for bad PCs, especially bad PCs benefitting from GM favoritism. I suspect the biggest problem with DMPCs is simply that you can have those problems result from one wangrod in the group, instead of needing two wangrods in cahoots to create them.