DMPCs, inherently good/bad?

[Thrud]

This came up on another thread. Are DMPC's good, bad, or indifferent? Is the term itself one that should only be used for something that is bad, or is it a neutral term without any bias?

I have had a bad personal experience with DMPCs - which I listed in another thread and I recopy here -


I remember this terrible game (modern day setting) where the DM decided that we were all going to be military, gave us all noncom ranks, and gave us orders to head out and deal with some sort of problem. Can't even remember what it was now, because I have tried to put it all out of my memory. But anyway, he also decided to send officers with us. A group of them to be specific. 4 PCs, and 4 NPC officers, all of whom outranked us so we had to do whatever they told us to do, and all of whom were better than us in every respect. It was truly a horrible game, because it was simply the 'sit back and let the DMs characters solve every problem' game. It ended after the second session when we discovered that apparently the game was always going to be that way. (We gave him the benefit of the doubt after the first one, hoping that the officers would all be killed off, or something)

However, I have also had NPCs that I have run in games without enough players in order to keep the game running, that I have grown quite fond of. Did this constitute a DMPC, or was it just a necessary NPC?

Just wondering if there was a discussion to be had out of this subject.

[Chronicled]

I'd say that they're inherently indifferent, but usually used in a bad way. They can be helpful in campaigns with 1-2 players, or to help nudge younger players along, but more often they're a DM self-insert.

[Occasional Sage]

My experience with DMPCs is that they are mostly the DM's previous PC, brought back out of... nostalgia? size compensation? I dunno. That creates a conflict of interest right out of the gate.

As the guy in charge, when the DM starts to put NPCs before the PCs, there's a problem. Whatever the source of the DMPC, that's the effect. Invariably they are bad for the game.

[TheElfLord]

I think the term DMPC refers to a bad thing. Personally I think there should be a clear break between the DM and players and that the DM doesn't need his own "character" to tag along with the group and have fun. If the DM wants a character he should be a player. When you have a PC on equal footing with the rest of the characters but with the benifit of being controled by the DM, there is trouble.

That being said, there can be NPC members of a party without an issue. Instead of DMPC I like to use the term Friendly NPC, because the NPC is there to be a party member and part of the group, but is not a PC and as DM I don't treat them as my PC. If the party is missing a major role, I will give them a Friendly NPC to help them get along. A Friendly NPC will never be more powerful than the group and is often less powerful.

[Crow]

I don't think there are bad DMPC's so much as there are bad DM's. Last time I suggested that I wouldn't be running a character (I DM for my group), my group insisted that I do. Incidentally, it seems that my characters die the most. Maybe out of a subconcious desire to not be playing a character?

[EndlessWrath]

DMPC is (in my opinion) generally a negative term used to reference an NPC who has taken the role of a main character. Sometimes their helpful... but their chances of helpfulness (a measly 12%) vs the chances of being forced into a cutscene so the DM can show off his DMPC (a colossal 99%) doesn't balance well in the mind of most players.

Don't get me wrong. NPC's are generally useful to some degree. and especially in a small party, an npc who fills the role would be great. But not when he takes over the storyline. D&D is about the players. and a DM's job is to keep the players interested. A cutscene is a good tool to use... but it is constantly overused.

My most recent experience with the DMPC... is with a DM who was originally a player... and then took up the role of DM when the DM called it quits. So he revolved the game around his character...which isn't wrong, but it's gotten to a point where the heroes cannot even influence the world. all because the cutscene is a constant tool. He's a great DM..but he was taken by the DMPC idea.

------------
Thats my take on it anyways.
~Wrath.

[Kaihaku]

I think it depends on the system but generally DMPCs are dangerous and while not inherently bad difficult to pull off. In freeform, I think it's a lot easier to manage one without trumping the players. In stat-based games...yeah. I'd encourage any DM to stick with NPCs and avoid using DMPCs. The PCs are suppose to the stars not witnesses to how awesome a character the DM can make in a setting where they control everything. Now, super awesome NPCs have a place, but that place isn't the PC's place. Like in the original Megaman X, Zero is all that and a bag of chips, but he doesn't pop in at every boss fight and steal the show.

One proactive point though... If your DM seems really stuck on DMPCs, maybe it's because they never get to play because they're the only one whose willing to DM. Cut them some slack and run a game so they get a chance to play on the other side of the screen too.

[OzymandiasVolt]

A DMPC is a tool. What determines if it is good or not is how the DM uses it.

[Raum]

Well trying to avoid all the extreme rhetoric and approach the question logically, what are DMPCs used for? What is the result of using one? What are the intended results, the actual results, and the side affects? Consider the following when answering: Impact to the plot or story.
Impact to player characters.
Impact to metagame / how the game is played.
Impact to how the game is DMed / GMed.List all the results and then decide whether you think they're good or bad.

[nargbop]

General rule of RPGs ==> The players talk more than 90% of the time.

If this is not the case, the DM is too pleased with listening to himself talk. If he speaks poetry with his flowing mind and everyone's happy to listen, then cool. If not, he's a creep. I know. I've been the latter.

A DM PCs only purpose is to railroad. What's worse, a DM PC is railroading that's in the player's faces all the time. A DM should not micromanage, a DM should not dictate player's motivations or actions, a DM should not ever make his NPCs interact with each other.

This last one is important - if a DM ever has two NPCs exchange more than two paragraphs with each other, tell him to cut it out, get into the conversation, or leave the game.

[Frosty]

Sometimes cutscenes are important. If your PCs are spying on two eenmies talking, there's going to be a lot of talking that doesn't involve the PCs.

[Vortling]

I would say that DMPC is a negative term. After all if the DMPC isn't stealing the spotlight and making the PCs unneeded, it isn't a DMPC anymore. It's just a NPC. :smalltongue:

[valadil]

I wouldn't call them inherently good or bad, but DMPCs have a lot of potential for bad. Namely that DMPCs overshadow the group.

In my opinion DMPCs should never be put in place by the DM, but requested by the players. If a group has no cleric and wants to hire one, the DM has every right to play out the cleric character. He's filling a niche and it is a niche that the group thinks needs filling.

Personally I would never use a DMPC. I like seeing oddly shaped groups adjust to D&D. I've probably run close to 50 game sessions (my campaigns tend to be only a couple months long) and only had clerics for 4 or 5 of them. The game still works.

Furthermore I can't imagine why you'd want to invest time in a character only to put it on the players side. I'd rather put another interesting NPC or villain in the world than give the players another party member.

[Crow]

General rule of RPGs ==> The players talk more than 90% of the time.

If this is not the case, the DM is too pleased with listening to himself talk. If he speaks poetry with his flowing mind and everyone's happy to listen, then cool. If not, he's a creep. I know. I've been the latter.

A DM PCs only purpose is to railroad. What's worse, a DM PC is railroading that's in the player's faces all the time. A DM should not micromanage, a DM should not dictate player's motivations or actions, a DM should not ever make his NPCs interact with each other.

This last one is important - if a DM ever has two NPCs exchange more than two paragraphs with each other, tell him to cut it out, get into the conversation, or leave the game.

I'm guessing you've had terrible DM's in the past then, because a DMPC is by no means a railroad tool unless the DM makes it so.

[Swordguy]

Crow has it right.

They aren't inherently good or bad - they're what the DM makes of them

You may as well say "are all Clerics inherently good/bad?", or "are all white people who play the game good or bad?"

Saying that DMPCs are always bad is no less a stereotype than either of those examples. If you answer no to those example, you should answer no to this one. If you answer yes to those examples, well...

...you're just a bad human being.

[Kaihaku]

I'm guessing you've had terrible DM's in the past then, because a DMPC is by no means a railroad tool unless the DM makes it so.

Usually it's more of a "look how awesome I'd be if I were a player in my campaign" kind of thing. :smallconfused:

Though, I think there's a bit of split here in definitions. 3/4ths of us are talking about DMs playing in their own campaigns, like really playing it's their character, and the other 1/4th is talking about a DM throwing in a NPC to fill a gap.

Regardless, I like valadil's take. Well put. :smallsmile:

[BlueWizard]

I still see them as NPCs. And never should 'DMPCs' steal the spotlight. I've had them pull PCs out of the frying pan on totally failed missions, but I am told my 'helpful NPCs' are far from that. I find this works better as it makes th egame more for the PCs.

What is the fun in the game if your badass 'DM-PC' archmage kills everything before the real PCs can even engage.

What the DM that does that needs to do is join a game as a player or get over it. His job is the story and the world, and quite literally everything, but the main characters.

[Crow]

What is the fun in the game if your badass 'DM-PC' archmage kills everything before the real PCs can even engage.

The problem is that everyone assumes that this is the way every DM-PC is played. Again, it's how the DM uses it that makes it bad.

[Knaight]

Sometimes they also work to illustrate something else. For instance, in a sci-fi campaign there was an Agent Phantom, who was pretty much a female James Bond, but more badass. Who actually used a code name. Occasionally she would be assigned to help the PCs, usually in respect to long distance sniping. After a while, she was just assumed to be someone who couldn't die(more due to personality than skill, the players actually liked her, as did most of the characters). So a radio transmission of "What the he...(static) OH SHI...(explosion sound), combined with the ground shaking served to illustrate just how dangerous what the PCs were doing was, and instilled a bit more caution. That much was sort of planned the entire time, I knew at least one of the top tier agents had to die, and Phantom was by far the most loved. Granted she was usually off doing her own thing, or assisting some other group of agents, or spending time in the brig for lack of respect to a superior officer, so she was more of an NPC than DMPC. That said DMPCs can be used horribly, as a railroad plot, I've seen this happen, and it eventually lead to the DMPC being killed in their sleep because all of the characters were so ridiculously optimized that the five level gap didn't even matter.

[FoE]

Gods, the mistakes I've made with DMPCs. Let me teach you the lessons I have learned:

1) If you stick a DMPC in a party who's going to turn traitor, don't expect your players to be surprised. They will roll their eyes and say, "Gee, didn't see that one coming." Like sixty per cent of all DMPCs are backstabbers, and your players know it.

2) Never make your DMPCs too powerful. Either they steal the spotlight, or your PCs regard them as a cannon. (The DM of the Rings pointed this out as well.) In fact, they should probably just stay out of fights altogether, or at least stay out of fights the PCs are directly involved in.

2a) Never make a DMPC for the sole purpose of directing a party, which is a blatant case of railroading. If you insist on doing so, don't be surprised if the party attacks the DMPC or leaves him behind in a death trap (see Rule #4).

3) On the flip side, never make your DMPCs too useless. They should be able to contribute a healing spell/have some rudimentary knowledge of the dungeon/cast Magic Missle at the darkness now and then. Otherwise the players just mock the DMPC for being dead weight and will likely leave him to "hold off that zombie horde/giant spider/army of orcs/balrog/rolling boulder while we scout ahead!" (Again, see Rule #4.)

4) As a general rule, never place the DMPC in mortal danger for the sake of "drama," unless they're worth lots of money/treasure items. Nine times out of ten the PCs just abandon him to his fate. :smalltongue:

4a) On a related note, unless this is an NPC who has been around the adventurers for a while, don't bother pulling a Heroic Sacrifice for your DMPC. Your PCs don't friggin' care. The flavour text from a Magic card sums it up pretty well:

"His sacrifice shall not be forgotten. Now toss his body over there with the others."

5) Don't hold conversations between DMPCs and NPCs. It's called talking to yourself, and it's a quick way to suck tension out of a game.

[Diggorian]

No, of course not inherently bad. As others have said, it's the usage that matters.

By definition, it's just a synonym for NPC - specifically a party ally NPC usually. The connotation arrives from the tendency that people don't post to complain about greatly helpful and well played DMPC's.

NPCs, ally or enemy, that routinely outshine the PC protagonists aren't very entertaining usually.

[Tallis]

To answer whether DMPCs are good or bad first we need to agree on a definition of DMPC. A player character is a player's personal character, it is inherently the most important character in the setting to that player. A dmpc is the player character of the DM. Now the DM has a personal character that is the most important one in the world to him.

That is likely to be very bad for the game. The spotlight should always be on the player's characters, otherwise they might as well go see a play. It would take an exceptional DM to not let this interfere with his game.

I would say that if a character does not fit this definition then it is an NPC and can be used quite effectively, even as part of the players group. If you run a character as part of the player's party be very careful that you're running an NPC not a DMPC.

[BobVosh]

DMPCs are bad. If by DM PC you mean a character that is there just because the dm wants to be a PC not a dm.

DM NPCs are neutral. They can be terrible, they can be good. Most are terrible. Also as one guy mentioned don't make them traitors. Never surprises the party. In fact in one game we came to the conclusion that all NPC scouts, espically with levels in scout, take ranks in Craft Betrayal, and Preform Betrayal (synergy bonuses). The second one of them said "we are going to scout ahead" we prepare buffs, and GTFO. If possible we set up a counter ambush.

However some DM NPCs are done so well I just can't imagine the game being half as good without them.

[Kaihaku]

Thanks BobVosh, I think that pretty much sums it up.

NPCs neutral...possibly very good, possibly very bad.

DMPC ((An NPC that thinks its a PC))...ninety-nine percent of the time very bad.

[AstralFire]

I have, as a DM, actually played my PC previous to becoming a DM as an NPC. The only thing anyone ever complained about was the DMPC dying, because they had grown to like her.

Now, granted, I was aware of my own favoritism and limited it in various ways - the character was mostly used as a contact to hand out missions from that point on, and was deployed as part of base defense when the PC's fortress was invaded. However, she was still more powerful than any one of the other PCs because she was better optimized, and her presence was a great moral support - in part because she was a Bard in a party of mostly melees. And no one complained.

PCs do not, I think, object to occasionally being reminded that they are not always the baddest mother (SHUT YO MOUTH) on the block. What they object to is the entire campaign turning into the DM having a captive audience for his finger puppet play, which is true of any blatantly railroaded campaign, DMPC or not. An antagonist that the PCs quite honestly never have a hope of ever thwarting (like the way some people seem to think dragons should be played at all times. Really, Magnificent Bastard-Stus who are also Goku are *yawn* unless used sparingly) is just as irritating as a DMPC, if not more.

Unless you're playing Call of Cthulu, where I gather part of the fun is seeing who's going to be the last one to go insane or something.

[SoD]

In all campaigns I've played with, or DMed, there's been at least one DMPC. However: it's because the players drag him/her/them along. They've also always been either as strong as, or weaker than (due to ELC, optimisation, or both) the average PC in our party.

That being said, in the campagin I'm writing/DMing, there's a character who's a level higher than the party (and a wizard) who'll be with the party. However, he's not much of a combatant, and won't be with the party for a huge amount of time. He serves the plot. The players have just met him...and one of them knocked him unconcious. The relationship between those two may be...strained?

[JackMage666]

A key thing I've learned about DMPCs (from my brief time playing them), is to keep certain, usually considered suboptimal, classes in mine. The Healer is a GREAT DMPC class, because it sucks for players, but serves wonderfully as a basic need of the party. Warmage, though more forceful than most like, is good too, especially if the party lacks firepower - Just make sure he's subservient enough to listen to the players more than to take his own action (a low Wisdom helps in this). Dread Necromancer can be useful in Evil Campaigns, adding a bit of (specialized) arcane power to the group. Fighters, Hexblades, Swashbucklers make great Martial DMPCs, as they add a punch to the game, but pretty much nothing else. Soulknives are generally safe bets, as they're pretty self sufficient (so the party doesn't need to share the loots).

So long as they're only helping the party, not doing everything for them, DMPCs can be an awesome tool. Also, a DMPC should be quite, mostly, to not take away from the PCs stage time - You have random encounters, NPC, the BBEG, and everything else to talk, let the PCs have their moment, too.

I generally imbue DMPCs with a certain level of cowardice or submission, so the PCs make the courageous choices, and the DMPC follows cause he's scared to get left behind. In fact, if he had it his way, the DMPC would simply avoid the adventure, but since he's outvoted (cause the PCs want the reward), he goes along and helps.

[AstralFire]

DMPCs can lead if your party needs to be lead (it happens sometimes, especially the more sandboxy a game gets), it's just hard for them to lead AND be a consistent presence. Then the invisible or guiding hand becomes an iron fist. Usually.

This entire discussion reminds me of an excellent line from the NJO series of Star Wars books:

"What distinguishes a flower from a weed is only—and exactly—this: the choice of the gardener."

[DeathQuaker]

I generally consider a DMPC to be an NPC who by railroad joins the party (not to be confused with the NPC you planned to have the PCs kill and the PCs captured her and made her sign a mercenary contract to work with them, and fight any attempt you make to write her out of the storyline......:smallsigh:) and overshadows what the PCs can do. Or any NPC who accomplishes the story's goal in lieu of the PCs.

That's bad.

I think you can have a recurring or major NPC, even the DM's favorite, that ISN'T a DMPC... the key is making sure the accomplishment of the PCs goals is performed by the PCs, and that no one (barring special, rare, singular circumstances which have a purpose) shows up to be better at doing what they do.

One thing I do when making NPCs I think will be recurring is build them/design their concept so they can provide useful info to the party, but not particularly have them be useful in combat, and give them a realistic excuse for not being part of the party except for very, very briefly (like, "I'll walk with you to the library" kind of thing...). They can even be high level--just not fill the shoes the PCs already fill.

[Knaight]

Gods, the mistakes I've made with DMPCs. Let me teach you the lessons I have learned:

1) If you stick a DMPC in a party who's going to turn traitor, don't expect your players to be surprised. They will roll their eyes and say, "Gee, didn't see that one coming." Like sixty per cent of all DMPCs are backstabbers, and your players know it.

2) Never make your DMPCs too powerful. Either they steal the spotlight, or your PCs regard them as a cannon. (The DM of the Rings pointed this out as well.) In fact, they should probably just stay out of fights altogether, or at least stay out of fights the PCs are directly involved in.

2a) Never make a DMPC for the sole purpose of directing a party, which is a blatant case of railroading. If you insist on doing so, don't be surprised if the party attacks the DMPC or leaves him behind in a death trap (see Rule #4).

3) On the flip side, never make your DMPCs too useless. They should be able to contribute a healing spell/have some rudimentary knowledge of the dungeon/cast Magic Missle at the darkness now and then. Otherwise the players just mock the DMPC for being dead weight and will likely leave him to "hold off that zombie horde/giant spider/army of orcs/balrog/rolling boulder while we scout ahead!" (Again, see Rule #4.)

4) As a general rule, never place the DMPC in mortal danger for the sake of "drama," unless they're worth lots of money/treasure items. Nine times out of ten the PCs just abandon him to his fate. :smalltongue:

4a) On a related note, unless this is an NPC who has been around the adventurers for a while, don't bother pulling a Heroic Sacrifice for your DMPC. Your PCs don't friggin' care. The flavour text from a Magic card sums it up pretty well:

"His sacrifice shall not be forgotten. Now toss his body over there with the others."

5) Don't hold conversations between DMPCs and NPCs. It's called talking to yourself, and it's a quick way to suck tension out of a game.

1) Depends on the DMPCs personality, but pretty much yes.
2) Or they can be powerful, but not contribute directly in all fights. For instance, take the Phantom example, she's pretty much badass, but is a sniper and stealth expert foremost, so in most cases when the players are inside all she can do is keep reinforcements from coming. That said, in some cases, she can sort of be brought in to help(ie, opening the roof over the hangar deck, followed by a couple sniper shots coming in from far away, giving the players enough time to steal a plane, and start shooting. The PCs are still the big heroes, but they get help.
3) Agreed, although they don't have to be useful in combat. For instance if they can hack computers, or set demolitions your party will want to keep them around. Even if they spend most of combat cowering behind cover.
4) Again depends on personality. Although its more fun just to kill them anyways, especially after establishing that they are pretty tough.
4a) Agree, although its more fun to just suddenly kill a DMPC/NPC that the players like.

[Serpentine]

I'll say first that I have experienced a bad DMPC. That game was pretty dodgy for all sorts of reasons, and that guy was one of them. An uber-powerful half-giant goddess-lover? Nya...
On the other hand, Goff and I are the only other DMs I've known, and we've both always had our own characters involved. He has played his Rogue, Nuturion, over and over again and knows him and his motivations, personality, fears etc. inside and out, so doesn't have to think about them. Unfortunately, this character does tend to dominate the game, but that happens as much when he's a player as when he's a DM and can much more be put down to the retricience of the other players than any fault of his, and he does try to keep out of the spotlight as much as he can.
When I took over the reigns of DMdom, I deliberately set my previous character aside in favour of a more backgroundy one. Goff was annoyed that he never really got a good feel for her personality and the like - a fault, I know - but that was sort of the point: She was there to help, and because I like playing characters, while being more in the background than the actual PCs. She is a Knight, a class that's not too big on dealing damage or doing really impressive things but rather is there to be hit so that other party members aren't. She has died twice, more than or equal to any other character. The first was partly due to my bad DMing and partly due to my bad PCing: I put two Drowned on a ship. The DM error was not taking into account just how much space their drowning auras would fill up (most of the ship). The PC error was not giving my Knight a ranged weapon... Anyway, having that character there certainly didn't take anything away from the other players. If anything, it just made it that much more challenging. The second death, she was doing exactly what she's meant to do: She got hit so other people wouldn't. This death, also being rather impressive, even lead to a side-quest to have her resurrected. Goff's Nuturion is impressive, but only because it was an accidentally good build that he would have made if he was just a player. My Kariana isn't even all that tough. My biggest problem is that she is, by virtue of her DMing-independent personality and class, prone to making heroic sacrifices...
I think Goff and I are pretty good at doing something very important in using a DMPC: We keep our characters and our DMing separate. The DMPC abides by all the rules that the PCs do. Sometimes they'll even come up with an idea or somesuch that contradicts what the DM wants to happen, because that's what the character would do if played by just a player. The character is just another character, and receives no extra information or benefit from the DM except where it would be a particularly useful tool for the party or to keep the game moving. Players and game come first, DMPC comes well behind.

[Caewil]

In one Star Wars game, I had a DMPC who everyone though was going to betray the party. Boy were they surprised - I had one of the other PCs betray them instead. (He quite enjoyed plotting their downfall.) His player then took over the DMPC, kicked his PC's ass and saved the party after a climactic lightsaber battle. To be fair, the DMPC was actually the player's original character concept but he couldn't get all the stuff he wanted in the first few levels. I stopped him from butchering it (because it was so cool) and came up with the plan to introduce his character into the party at a later level. On the other hand, I may have been guilty of DM favoritism. But in my opinion, any player able to pull off something like that deserves it.

[PnP Fan]

The term DMPC seems like an artificial construct strapped on to the game language that describes a situation that people are unhappy with. Your DM controls NPCs, whether they regularly adventure with the party or not. Unless you swap DMs around during a campaign regularly anything the DM controls is inherantly an NPC. When an NPC starts stealing the spotlight from the PCs, especially on a regular basis, this is a bad thing, regardless of how often the character adventures with the PCs. This doesn't mean that NPCs can't be memorable, fun, or interesting, they just shouldn't be taking the same role as one of the PCs, and their presence shouldn't be the deciding factor in any situation. (NPC Heal-bots tend to be the thing I use, just as a safety net, on those rare occaisions when the party needs rounding.)

A good alternative to including NPCs to round out the party are the gestalt rules. It makes the paperwork for the Players a little more dificult, but it ensures that all roles can be filled, even in small parties.

[Thurbane]

With having a small group (3 players, 1 DM), we usually find it neccessary to have a NPC (or two) along. Maybe we've just lucked out, but in each case they have been played fair and reasonably by the DM, and never outshined PCs...

[valadil]

The term DMPC seems like an artificial construct strapped on to the game language that describes a situation that people are unhappy with. Your DM controls NPCs, whether they regularly adventure with the party or not.

DMPC is a subclass of NPC. It's the NPC who acts as a party member because the DM didn't want to miss out on his own game.

[Jimp]

In the very first game I was DM I put in an overpowered DMPC, but kept him mostly separate from the PCs. He was their employer and while he had DMPC awesome powers they were only used once to save the PCs asses. It was still a pretty poor bit of DMing on my part though.
I have avoided DMPCs since until a recent GURPS steampunk game where I inserted an ex-army surgeon that the PCs can contact for assistance either on missions or for medical reasons. They haven't asked him to join in on a mission yet so he has mostly been a normal NPC providing medical assistance when they get beat up.

[PnP Fan]

DMPC is a subclass of NPC. It's the NPC who acts as a party member because the DM didn't want to miss out on his own game.

Exactly. Which implies a situation that the players are probably unhappy with. What I'm getting at, in a rather cicumspect manner, is that an "NPC Party member" is something that doesn't bother anyone. It's clear than it's an NPC and that it's just part of the party. When you have an "NPC Party Member that Outshines the PCs", it becomes a "DMPC", because people are unhappy with the situaion and wish to highlight the conflict of interest. As such, the real complaint isn't that the DM is controlling a party member, it's that his NPC is outshining the players, a complaint that may apply equally to ALL NPCs.

[AKA_Bait]

Honestly, this topic (which has come up many times before) is pretty much just about semantics. Whether a DMPC is a neutral or derogatory term for use of an NPC is really the only thing people argue about. I'm sure everyone agrees that NPCs should never outshine the PCs, make them useless or make all their decisions for them. If we call an NPC that does that stuff a DMPC or not is really just a matter of words.

[mangosta71]

It really comes down to the DM's skill at role-playing. If he can control himself (not use OOC knowledge IC) the DMPC can be a nice addition. However, if the group is short a person or two, it's generally less stressful on the game to have a player controlling 2 PCs (again, role-playing is essential - unless the two characters are identical, they will know different things and have different reactions to situations).

[Duke of URL]

I'm running a published module in the PbP forums that requires a DMPC. But the directions are very clear to let her point the party in the right direction, but not to provide solutions or to bail them out of bad decisions.

Even in combat, her role is primarily defensive (protect the casters).

I think there's nothing inherently wrong with it, though I generally would not use on of my own regard -- I'd rather provide "recruit" NPCs to shore up gaps and let the party essentially control them, as long as they're reasonable.

[Shazzbaa]

DMPCs -- I have seen one done right. And several done wrong.

Technically, the term is differentiated from "NPC" by being the DM's character instead of merely a character with no player. As such, the term is pejorative, since as soon as the DM is trying to have his cake and DM it too, there's typically a problem of conflicting interests.

I have, however, seen a DMPC run very well in a homebrew game. See, he was cripplingly stupid, and we thought we were doing an escort mission, trying to get this naive guy through a dangerous place. He was charismatic, so he could do some talking, as long as we had time to prep him on what to say, and the fact that he rarely knew what was really going on meant he never stole the spotlight -- he was a tag-along, and an endearingly dumb one.
It later turned out that he was one of the few people in the game capable of resurrecting fallen characters, so his constant presence in the earlier part of the game was a necessary precaution... but it was never jarring, and we actually enjoyed the character.

The right kind of DMPC can work out just fine and be loved as much as other NPCs, but never assume that you are the exception to the rule. It's kind of like Mary Sues in writing -- a good writer can get away with a Mary Sue character, but you should be careful if you assume that you are that good writer.

So I'm gonna go with what seems to be the consensus, and say they're not inherently bad, but it's much easier to go bad than good. If you get in a situation where you need to run one, pleeease pay attention to your players; if they seem more annoyed than interested every time the "DMPC" does something, you should probably pull back.

....

I disagree really strongly with the comment that NPCs should never talk to each other. I have a DM who's uncomfortable with "talking to himself" and it's always a blow to my suspension of disbelief when the NPC we were just with suddenly falls mute as soon as a second one shows up.
The unfortunate truth, though, is that how much NPC-NPC discussion you can get away with probably depends on how entertaining you, personally, are. If you're a good actor, the players can enjoy it, and you can get away with it for a lot longer (though you should never shut your players out (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=937), obviously -- if they want to jump in and say something, let them), but sadly, if you're not a good actor your players will likely have less tolerance. I still say, gauge their interest carefully to determine how much is fun and how much is pushing it.

[Telonius]

I'm going to be running several DMPC's in an upcoming campaign - but only because the campaign only has one player (my wife), who is playing a sorcerer. She really likes roleplay, not so much on the combat. The idea is that I'm going to provide her some minions and meatshields, but leave all of the decision-making up to her. Hopefully this will go well.

In general, I'd say that when they work, they work best in either very small groups, or with a lower level of power, than the rest of the players.

[valadil]

I disagree really strongly with the comment that NPCs should never talk to each other. I have a DM who's uncomfortable with "talking to himself" and it's always a blow to my suspension of disbelief when the NPC we were just with suddenly falls mute as soon as a second one shows up.
The unfortunate truth, though, is that how much NPC-NPC discussion you can get away with probably depends on how entertaining you, personally, are. If you're a good actor, the players can enjoy it, and you can get away with it for a lot longer (though you should never shut your players out (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=937), obviously -- if they want to jump in and say something, let them), but sadly, if you're not a good actor your players will likely have less tolerance. I still say, gauge their interest carefully to determine how much is fun and how much is pushing it.

NPCs should certainly talk to each other, but you should hesitate to plan scenes that focus on NPC on NPC action. I don't mind talking to myself if the story calls for it, but I do mind kicking PCs out of the spotlight.

I once had a GM plan a whole session of him talking to himself for a trial scene. He was going on the assumption that his acting would entertain us. It didn't and I think he was disappointed. The players came to game to participate, not to be an audience. While I'm glad to see the GM go to great lengths to roleplay his NPCs, he did so at the exclusion of the PCs to the detriment of his game.

[Crow]

NPCs should certainly talk to each other, but you should hesitate to plan scenes that focus on NPC on NPC action. I don't mind talking to myself if the story calls for it, but I do mind kicking PCs out of the spotlight.

I once had a GM plan a whole session of him talking to himself for a trial scene. He was going on the assumption that his acting would entertain us. It didn't and I think he was disappointed. The players came to game to participate, not to be an audience. While I'm glad to see the GM go to great lengths to roleplay his NPCs, he did so at the exclusion of the PCs to the detriment of his game.

I love it when the DM talks to himself. The one great time I got to watch it was two NPC's arguing with eachother. It was hilarious!

[valadil]

I'm not saying it can't be fun to watch. Just that players should have more options than sitting back and watching. NPC on NPC conversation (like DMPCs, the OT of this thread) has a lot of potential to devolve into DM wankery at the expense of the players.

[Gamgee]

I use them sparingly, incredibly sparingly and for short bursts where the group just starts to love/hate the character and then I kill em off or have them reassigned or whatever. I only use them to advance the plot, and when they are in fights I tend to pull some punches to tone them down to only slightly stronger than PC's and even then it is to advance the story before allowing the players to go out and well do everything.

example: In a Saga game I am running I had a lvl 8 NPC Jedi Knight and the party is level six. I used him for the first session to set the mood and tone of the campaign, the players got to like him. One of the players was even playing as his Padawan. Later on in the next session (incredibly long sessions so lots happens in them) the Knights went off to investigate something while the PC's were on a mission. Then for a mini session I worked it into the story of the Knight being taken down by a group of Sith after a special crystal, in the mini session the player who was the Padawan raced to him on a speeder bike after he felt through the force. Epic fight ensues with the PC nearly dieing, he then attempts to heal his master and rolled a critical 20 and used a destiny point, but sadly that was just not enough to heal him and bring him back.

I ruled he transferred enough of his force that his Master came back as a Force Ghost only temporary due to how much his apprentice tried to revive him in those last few moments of life. After explaining the situation he gave his Padawan one last instruction, you are the Knight now, and you have to stop the Sith. Then he faded away, the real mystery the player has to figure out was why her master had the components to make a lightsaber in his pocket. (He foreseen this, and planned to meet his death for a greater cause, but the player doesn't know that yet :P )

Finally the player came back with her Masters robe and had to explain things to the others in the group, all were sad to see him go because he was such a good character that had helped them out of a tough battle ONCE.

It was an incredibly fun three sessions, and the player of the Pdawan had said it was no doubt my best ever, a compliment I was glad to receive. So when they are used correctly they can make an excellent tool, as I did play the character for a little bit before moving on. I can't wait for next session... also that was a long ass example.

[sombrastewart]

I've used a DMPC before. I had a group of a bard, cleric, paladin, fighter and duskblade. Now, the bard had sunk her points into interaction skills, which is fine, but by the very nature of the story, they needed an arcanist. So I made a warlock who was aware of where to go and had good knowledge: arcana, but didn't really get involved in fights much.

Amusingly, three of the PCs were rookies who turned on him after the first fight and said: "Why weren't you helping?" He responded with: "You didn't look like you needed me. I was watching to make sure there weren't more coming."

He didn't overshadow them, but instead provided hints and information when they needed it. I thought it worked alright. Most of the time he didn't do much.

[Piedmon_Sama]

I end up using DMPCs a lot. >_>

But, the converse of this is I think I've gotten pretty good at doing it.

I've never made a DMPC just to fill in a party roll like "heal battery" or "skill monkey." They're there to further along the plot. My DMPC is usually the one who gives the PCs the mission, and proceeds to accompany them, since I've always kind of resented the "you do jobs X, Y and Z for me while I sit here on my fat ass" quest-giving stereotype. The key to balancing them out is making them able to hold their own without overshadowing the other PCs.

Right now in my current campaign, the PCs are part of an expedition to recover a "lost city." The expedition's leader is a 5th level Expert, my "DMPC." In addition to the teamsters, grooms and valets the expedition included the Expert's "personal guards" (4 Dreadguards from the Monster Manual II), and 2 additional guards (1st level warriors). I think an unintended side effect of having this extra muscle was to make the PCs (who are 4th level) somewhat complacent. Last night we played through an encounter where the expedition was ambushed by bandits, who fired on the caravan from concealment with crossbows. Give him cover and 100+ feet distance, and a low-level warrior is a pretty deadly threat even to PCs. They spent two hours hiding behind their wagons and failing to spot the enemies, so they let the four dreadguards (who are virtually impervious to arrows/bolts) march up alone. The bandit captain, an 8th level warrior, attacked the dreadguards and killed two of them before being driven off, while the PCs pretty much just watched---finally they thought about pursuing the Bandit Captain after he was already retreating, but there was no way they were going to catch him once he made it to the woods. My hope is the PCs learned not to rely on the "help" and will start showing more initiative in the next encounters.

[BlueWizard]

So to sum it up, don't steal the show DMs. Remember these 'DMPCs' are actually NPCs in disguise. You know everything before they get to the king's lair.

[EndlessWrath]

There is quite a difference between DMPC and NPC.
DMPC is not just a main character. He's the main character. All players take a back seat to this guy. Thats the idea. he's the main character. he's the DM's little pet and favorite toy.

You guys are saying that DMPC's can be helpful. I believe a multitude of NPC's are helpful...just as a multitude are worthless or dangerous. NPC's in adventuring parties aren't always DMPC's. There are muey importando NPC's .... kings, villains, and local clerics. There are plenty of important characters.

A DMPC is when there is 1 most important character. and he be the main character. He has far more influence than and PC, he cannot be killed to the story decides he can (if he doesn't rule the world before that...). DMPC is quite a negative term to refer to the DM trying to be a player...

lets just take a look for a second. The creator of the world... a person who no rules apply to... any decision (that doesn't effect character's decisions) he wishes is so. and now imagine giving that power to a player. That is why there is a DM. He is the Control. He makes it so players don't just say.. hey... I decide my fighter can fly, cause he just found a ring on the ground. You want one? there's 300 more in my pocket...

[Crow]

So we're basically using the definition as a DMPC being the term for a poorly-used NPC then, rather than the literal definition as a PC run by the DM?

A PC run by the DM is only bad if the DM makes it so. I've had bad players, but that doesn't mean every player is bad.

[Diamondeye]

As a general rule, I've found that DMPCs appear for one of three reasons:

1) The party is small
2) The players are inexperienced
3) The DM doesn't want to DM, especially if he's DM'd the last 2 or 3 campaigns. These are the ones that generally get to be problematic. If there's a spotlight-hogging DMPC around, chances are darn good that the DM is getting tired of DMing. I've known entirely too many people that think DM is an assigned role that can't be switched around from campaign to campaign.

[Knaight]

Although sometimes that is the GMs fault. For instance I would like to play(although there is no burn out, and I still like GMing. A one shot would probably be sufficient), but none of my players have any GM competence, and I'd really prefer to not be in a crappy game.

[Shazzbaa]

There is quite a difference between DMPC and NPC.
DMPC is not just a main character. He's the main character. All players take a back seat to this guy. Thats the idea. he's the main character. he's the DM's little pet and favorite toy.
A DMPC is when there is 1 most important character. and he be the main character. He has far more influence than and PC, he cannot be killed to the story decides he can (if he doesn't rule the world before that...). DMPC is quite a negative term to refer to the DM trying to be a player...

I think that's just a bad DMPC. That's a DMPC at its worst.

I know that these terms (since the RPG community pretty much made them up) are usually open to interpretation, but the way that "DMPC" has been used by the majority on this board, which I'm going to interpret as the definition for all intents and purposes, is more like --

An NPC that that the DM runs the way that a player runs a PC. A DMPC usually stays with the party for a while, as if he were another PC.

This last quality is what typically distinguishes a DMPC from an NPC.

[Thrud]

I think that's just a bad DMPC. That's a DMPC at its worst.

I know that these terms (since the RPG community pretty much made them up) are usually open to interpretation, but the way that "DMPC" has been used by the majority on this board, which I'm going to interpret as the definition for all intents and purposes, is more like --

An NPC that that the DM runs the way that a player runs a PC. A DMPC usually stays with the party for a while, as if he were another PC.

This last quality is what typically distinguishes a DMPC from an NPC.

Yeah, that is what I was going for when I started this up. I had a fighter that i ran in a campaign for a couple of years because they needed a meat shield after a player moved away. Originally I was going to run him as a standard hireling type NPC, but over time he developed a personality and became almost as much a part of the group as the PCs. But I wonder if he was ever really the same. Do I add that 'almost' because he was not quite a PC? Was he just a very well fledged out NPC? Is it possible to have a DMPC who is really like a party memeber?

At the moment the fact that DMPC has such a bad connotation for everyone makes it seem like the majority here think it isn't possible. But is that just a reaction to badly played DMPC's, or is it a reaction to the entire concept of a DMPC?

[AstralFire]

If it's a well-played DMPC, no one will even notice it. I wouldn't be surprised if a few posters here have played with good ones and not even realized it.

[Curmudgeon]

Inherently bad. You can use a DM's PC as an NPC just for convenience, but they should never be played as a party member.

[Knaight]

If it makes sense, they should be, but a support role(healer, long distance sniper, etc.) is ideal.

[AstralFire]

This forum really throws me off sometimes, given the unusually high number of people who often use the same avatars as each other. You can get some odd-looking conversations if you're used to identifying a single avatar as a single person...

[Knaight]

No kidding.

[Staven]

I have had two experiences with a DMPC before, one positive, and one neutral with positive and negative effects. First, I think the term is a neutral one, seeing as it's fairly technical. Second, here are my experiences:

My current experience with a DMPC is positive, we are running a campaign in a steampunk setting, and our job is basically to go around and cater to the requests of a few governments of the world. The DM gave us a DMPC to add some atmosphere, from what I can tell, and as a liason to the USA (it takes place on Earth in the Victorian Era). He mostly sits in the background, adds quips to conversation on occasion, and disappears during important segments when the spotlight needs to be on us. He has been known to contribute to combat when he is needed, and delivers an average output of damage (he uses primitive robots). He's generally a funny and well-liked character who looks like Daniel Plainview.

A previous DMPC experience left...a few things to be desired. He was basically the NPC that introduced us to the story, and helped us when we needed it, but after that, the DM got carried away. Our home base was his apartment (it was WoD), he would tell us what needed to be done, and, by far the biggest flaw in his existence, he was the main character in the story. Everything revolved around him and his love interest (who had the DnD equivelant of 25 APP), making the actual PCs supporting characters in his story. The campaign lasted a long time and ended happily, but we couldn't shake the feeling that this was about him, not us. The DM said that no one ever stepped up to the plate when trying to become a central character, but I would have to disagree. No matter how far we took our RPing, it wouldn't change the fact that we were just the straight man, comic relief, and other side characters. He even introduced a karma system that basically said: if you do anything contrary to your character's normal style of roleplaying, or if you act like a jerk, bad things will happen to you. Basically, it was a restriction on RP so his character could continue to be a Batman-Punisher hybrid sent from the gods to deliver vengeance upon the antagonist (whom he defeated alone). What I think would have been a good descision would be to introduce the character early on, help us until we became self sufficient, then be killed off.

The wierd thing? These two DMPCs were both products of the same DM. I would say that there's a right and wrong place for a DMPC. The right place is in the background, always.

[DigoDragon]

DMPCs are like guns. They're tools that are only as helpful or hurtful as how the DM that uses them. :smallsmile: What the DMPC is, isn't as big of a factor, but it does have a little influence.

[Eorran]

I've always had a party member when I've DM'ed, and so have all the people I've gamed with (a fairly limited number). I've never received criticism of spotlight hogging etc, so I don't have a problem with DMPCs.
That said, there are rules I follow:
1. The DMPC is the same level as the party.
2. The DMPC is preferably a class that demands minimal bookkeeping. Fighter, rogue, sorcerer are good; Wizard and Cleric can be OK if you don't tweak their spell lists; Druid is never good. (A druid gets his turn, his animal companion's turn, any summoned creature's turn every round. It can quickly turn combat into 90% one person's time. Boring!)
3. Can't be the party face, or the party leader. (I've found that a well-described character can sit out the decision-making without giving the appearance of sitting out.)
4. The DMPC is not a plot device; the story must not be HIS (or her) story.

All this works better for a straightforward campaign. In an intrigue-laden one, where the goal is for the players to figure things out, I'd recommend an NPC over a DMPC.

[Jayabalard]

To me, this seems like mostly semantic; it all depends on where you draw the line between a DMPC and an NPC.

If you call any NPC that travels along with the party a DMPC then it's something that most everyone will agree is not good or bad in and of itself, but it's something can be used in good and bad ways depending on the quality of your GM.

If you only call an NPC a DMPC when they start to usurp the player's enjoyment of the game by regularly upstaging the PC's or grabbing the spotlight, then it's pretty universally regarded as an inherently bad thing.

[Raum]

DMPCs, an Analysis

First, a definition: DMPCs are NPCs inserted into the PC group at the DM's behest. In other words, only NPCs accompanying the PCs yet not under the players' strategic control (PCs can't hire or fire them at will) meet my definition of a DMPC. Perhaps it not the only definition, but it's what I'll use until a better one comes along.

Why would a DM wish to us a DMPC? Here are several reasons pulled from various posts on a couple of forums:
The proclaimed 'good' uses of a DMPC: to assist the PCs filling in a skills / powers gap
filling out a numbers gap
adding extra power in some way
'showing' PCs or players how to accomplish something to guide the PCs give out hints or clues to the plot
sometimes hire the PCs and accompany them
facilitate cut scenes to move the plot along
to facilitate a DM's planned plot twist betray the PCs including: lies
intentional 'mistakes' or misinformation
working with an antagonist “find” something at an appropriate time
use abilities beyond the PCs' powers combat abilities
resurrection or healing powers
'meta' knowledges (knowing something no one else does at a plot chosen moment)

The obviously 'bad' uses of a DMPC: to allow the DM to continue “playing” as a player

What are the real meta game results? Assisting the PCs is probably the most positive use of DMPCs. However it is only needed when the DM is setting the game's power level above the PCs'. At it's worst this enters the realm of railroading by showing the PCs what they should have done.
At it's best it brings the party up to par with the game's power level. Guiding the PCs is a form of scripting the story. At its worst, it's a heavy handed railroad.
At best an unsubtly blatant road sign or clue stick.

Are there any inevitable consequences to using a DMPC?
Do they take time the DM could have spent on other facets of the game?
Do they steal screen / spotlight time from PCs?
In my opinion the answer to both questions is 'yes'. The first is fairly obvious, any time spent developing the DMPC could have been put into developing NPCs. The second is less obvious and, possibly, less inevitable. But any time spent having the DMPC guide or assist the PCs could have been spent on the players' helping themselves.