[3.5] Pet NPC vs. DMPC?

[newbDM]

I have always heard on the WotC forums that DMPCs are usually bad for the players. I am not 100% sure why, but I figure it has to do with the DM stealing the spotlight, and knowing everything he/herself already planned.

As for Pet NPCs, I just learned that term in the recent "Killing of my DM's pet NPC" thread. I immediately realized that I had three of those + one's cohort, who were former PCs of mine. I was using them to be the main NPCs hiring the player/PCs.

Can the experienced DMs and players here please tell me exactly what is the problem with Pet NPCs, what is the problem with DMNPCs, and how the two compare?


I understand that as a DM I am supposed to let the PCs/players shine, and I see it that I get enough fun role-playing the various (and many) NPCs in my sandbox world. I guess I just had a few I was still attached to. As was said in the above mentioned thread, I hadn't even fully stated them out, but instead just had a general idea of their class(s), levels, and abilities...

[Flickerdart]

Just remember that it's the players' game, and you'll be fine. If none of them are a skillmonkey, let them have one as an NPC, but don't give it the spotlight. Ever. It's just there for utility, like a wand or a tank. Give him character if you want: he might make a few plot hooks for your players, and maybe make him valuable enough that they'll want to rescue him if he's kidnapped.

The main difference between the two is that the DMPC will have a character sheet like the players. An NPC might not even be statted, nor will it follow the players everywhere.

The issue with both is that a DM might start essentially writing a novel, with the players incapable of affecting the world in a meaningful way. Read the DM of the Rings webcomic to see a wonderful and hilarious example of this, as well as railroading and other bad things.

[AslanCross]

I think it's mostly with the players getting shafted by the DMPC, who is sometimes given preferential treatment (better gear, arbitrary stats, foreknowledge of the DM's plans). The players are supposed to be the heroes, and if the DMPC is a Deus ex Machina, the players can grow to resent that. I think handling a DMPC is also time-consuming and adds yet another character sheet to the piles of notes that a DM sometimes works with.

That said, I have run a DMPC before, but with a very specific purpose: she was a PC that had to be retired because the player quit. We wanted a little more continuity in the story, and since she was practically the party leader (having more personality than the 18-Cha paladin :P). I held onto her until I killed her off in a climactic boss battle. She never took from the loot and never acted like she knew the story, and the players were aware that I planned to kill her off in a meaningful fashion. It could've been done otherwise, I know, but the players and I agreed on it.

She was eventually meant to come back as a boss later on, a vampire resurrected by the BBEG, but the PCs aren't high enough a level to fight her there and we need to bring the campaign to a swift close within the next few months.

[Flickerdart]

She was eventually meant to come back as a boss later on, a vampire resurrected by the BBEG, but the PCs aren't high enough a level to fight her there and we need to bring the campaign to a swift close within the next few months.

Bring her back anyways. Make them get creative, let them prepare ahead of time. Vampires have many weaknesses, from sunlight to Turn Undead. They can take her.

[Talya]

I have a bunch of Piratical PCs, on a ship. Of course, the ship is full of NPCs, of various usefulness, but they're all designed not to steal the spotlight, even when they are very very good at what they do. Note I do try to make each crewmember distinctive, with memorable abilities, but they never steal the spotlight. They are the Righettis and Pintels to my PC jack sparrows and will turners.



For instance:

The players are on a 40 point buy, and are now up to level 5.
The most expendable crew are on the elite array, and are levels 2-4. But even those at the same level as the players can't steal the show.

None of them wanted to play a divine type caster, so I decided they would need a ship's surgeon/healer. She's the first NPC i statted out on the full 40 point buy at the same . How'd I do it without overshadowing them?

First of all, though she's Lesser Aasimar, i gave her the most generic point buy possible: 14 str, 14 dex, 14 con, 14 int, 14 wis, 16 cha (modified to 16 wis, 18 cha after aasimar bonuses.) She's Chaotic Neutral, so her morality won't interfere with their decisions, she'll go along with anything. She worships Sune...which gives her the favored soul proficiency whip. Yay, she can disarm/trip (a bit. Lowish BAB and medium strength means she'll never excel at it), but she can't do damage. She's got Augment Healing as a feat, and every cure/restoration spell I could put on her, as well as a few non-flashy buffs.

Other NPCs with player classes that I added:
Olga, the half-orc barbarian. Player level -1, she bashes stuff with a big axe. Effectively, but she's basicly built and non-optimized. She's flirtatious and aggressive. And she put points in charisma. Big, scary, almost pretty half-orc who wants your body.

Fisher, the Goliath cook. (And monk.) He's the ship's cook. (Well, he also cooks.) Hey, he can fight, too. But he's a monk. He's not overshadowing anyone.

Mekrosta. He's the first mate. He talks like a jamaican, mon. And he is a human ranger, dual weilding cutlasses. No optimization at all, but he's got the skills needed to run a ship knowledgeably,if the players fail.


The trick with DMNPCs that frequently are tagging along with the players is they need to be interesting and competent enough to warrant them being there, yet they always need to play second fiddle to the PCs.

[Mike_G]

I commonly use DMPC's to fill a role that none of the PC's want to. Rather than stick somebody with the role, which used to happen back in High School (last one to show up has to play the Cleric), I'll just give them an NPC and let them all play fighters if they want.

It's also a good way to introduce plot hooks. Just don't steer too hard, or let the DMPC save the day too often. A quietly competent tank, skillmonkey or healer is easy to do. An arcane caster should be support: buffs, artillery, utility, not casting Win The Encounter every time.

[TempusCCK]

I have had bad bad BAD experiences with DMPC's in the past. Including denying my Paladin the opportunity to rescue the damsel in distress because the DMPC inexplicably had more spells than were possible for a wizard/rogue multiclass, and managed to levitate up to where she was being held before I could disengage the enemies I was fighting and climb up.

There were also instances of DMPC's taking loot (A wand of innervation), growing magnificently in power in the blink of an eye, suddenly having all sorts of neat magic items that allow them to kill enemies, and the inclusion of a epic level Wizard that showed up at the end of a battle, wiped the field completely clean with a giant tornado, said he good-days, and took off... Denying us, int he process, tons of EXP.

BLEH!

As such, I use DMPC's very carefully. Yes, I use them, yes, they contribute, but only in a meaningful way that aids the party. If I plan to include some NPC help, I make sure that they are included off screen as part of the background. For instance, on the pirate campaign I ran, my PC's were elite fighters and boarders, and they had a few NPCs int he group as well, and the enemies were always numerous enough to challenge the players, while allowing the others to fight other enemies in the background. All in all, it was very flavorful and the PC's got their share of action.

I think that this kind of stuff makes the game world seem real, rather than contrived around the actions of the PCs.

[Hida Reju]

Ok so what about DM's that fleshout a world to include NPC's that are very real and have control of the world around them? IE the Master mage of the city the characters are working out, the head of the local Thieves guild, kings, ect.

These NPCs have power in some ways equal to or exceeding the player characters, their opinions and decisions could move the plot forward or derail it completely if they are insulted, attacked, killed, ect.

I play with a GM that has flat out stated that if the person has a name they are a part of the story and your dealings with them will shape how things go.

So by many of the disscussions I read many if not all of them are Pet NPC or DMPC due to the amount of interaction we have with them.

[Raum]

Can the experienced DMs and players here please tell me exactly what is the problem with Pet NPCs, what is the problem with DMNPCs, and how the two compare?

Not sure how you're defining "Pet NPCs" but I'll try and help answer regarding DMPCs. For the record, I define DMPC as an NPC under the DM's control inserted into the party by the DM. A hireling is an NPC brought into the party by the PCs and is fireable by the PCs. Tactical control of hirelings is in the players' hands (hirelings take orders from PCs).

Potentially positive aspects of using a DMPC:
1. "Guide" the characters down a desired path. A subtype of this is using a DMPC to betray the party or add other plot twists.
2. Add "missing" party components, skills, or powers.
3. Allow the DM to "play". (I don't see how this is positive for anyone other than the DM but I've seen it listed as a reason in the past.)
4. Save the PCs from death.

Potentially negative aspects of using a DMPC:
1. Guidance is really just another name for railroading. Make sure you know how much your players are comfortable with.
2. Filling in a "missing" aspect necessarily takes scene time away from the player characters. The question is, why build in a requirement for something the characters can't accomplish to start with? It's only a requirement because the DM made it one.
3. "Playing" is possibly the worst possible reasons to use a DMPC. If you dislike DMing, don't. But frankly, there are a lot of reasons to enjoy DMing without having to play.
4. "Saving" the PCs is my other candidate for worst possible reason. If the PCs need saving it's because you put them in that position. If you're also stepping in to save them, you've relegated them to the role of victim.
5. Overshadowing the PCs. If a DMPC is more powerful than a PC, why are the PCs there again?
6. DMPC favoritism. If the DM didn't feel a need for an audience he'd just play with himself. Send him here.

Personally, I don't see anything positive from DMPCs which a DM can't get with another method. But you and your friends need to decide what fits in the game you play, it may work for you.

[KeresM]

4. "Saving" the PCs is my other candidate for worst possible reason. If the PCs need saving it's because you put them in that position. If you're also stepping in to save them, you've relegated them to the role of victim.

The only possible exception to this is when the dice are just determined to kill the PCs.


Pet NPCs are those the DM adores and wants to keep alive no matter what. Sometimes it's because they've put a lot of work into the NPC. Other times it's because the NPC is an extension of themselves. Pet NPCs are commonly those that outrank the PCs, kings, lords, captains of the guards, etc...

A good way, as a DM, to avoid having Pet NPCs is to make your necessary NPCs 'one hit wonders'. My favorite NPC is a sage. I enjoy playing him, but frankly, if you dropped him into the sort of scenarios the PCs regularly mow through, he's toast. He's got a lot of knowledge skills but couldn't spot the broad side of a barn. As a result, he's a useful tool to the PCs, but not someone who can boss them around to railroad them.

If an NPC must journey with the PCs, either give it to a player to control (via the leadership feat if possible) or keep it a power level below the PCs.

[Mike_G]

Potentially negative aspects of using a DMPC:
1. Guidance is really just another name for railroading. Make sure you know how much your players are comfortable with.

All railroading is not negative. I used to DM much more sandbox style, but there was a lot of the party milling around doing nothing, like a six year old saying "I'm booooooooooooooooooooored." A bit of a push or carrot can do wonders.

Even just a Bard with his Lore skill may be enough guidance. Plus, with his minor healing and nice support features, he can work well as a DMPC.

I also think that if I spend hours on an encounter or dungeon or what have you, and the party says "Nah. Let's take a ship instead and bypass those haunted mountains," Stuff will happen that they'll still find the ruined temple full of undead, maybe somewhere else, but they'll find it.

Now, I don't object if they outsmart the people I expect them to fight, or fight the people I expect them to negotiate with or what have you, but they don't get to sidestep something I put a lot of work into by taking the North road instead of the South road.

2. Filling in a "missing" aspect necessarily takes scene time away from the player characters. The question is, why build in a requirement for something the characters can't accomplish to start with? It's only a requirement because the DM made it one.

Well, sometimes it's hard to accommodate a nonstandard party. We actually have a party that is Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Swordsage. They can melee the bejeesus out of any challenge, but then they need to rest a week to regain HP, they can't deal with locks or barriers other than bashing them down, and they can't use spells for any utility purposes. Throwing a Beguiler with UMD as an NPC works well. He can use Cure wands and scrolls, skill monkey as needed, and when they need some diplomacy they shove him to the front. I don't one-shot encounters with him, ever. I tend to throw encounters at them they can stab their way out of. The NPC covers the stuff they don't want to do themselves, but feel should be part of a High Fantasy adventure.

[AslanCross]

Bring her back anyways. Make them get creative, let them prepare ahead of time. Vampires have many weaknesses, from sunlight to Turn Undead. They can take her.

Point. My build for her had her at CR 16, but bringing her back now...kind of gives me an opportunity to reintroduce her without needing to build another level-appropriate NPC for them to kill. I now have a very good idea. Thanks a lot.

All railroading is not negative. I used to DM much more sandbox style, but there was a lot of the party milling around doing nothing, like a six year old saying "I'm booooooooooooooooooooored." A bit of a push or carrot can do wonders.

Agreed. If the players have foreknowledge that you actually have a story prepared for them that they could realistically affect with their actions, then some railroading ("The ogre mage is the major villain, and his actions could make life very difficult for us if we do not stop him, regardless of our current plans or intentions.") would work well.

What would happen if PCs never took any plot hooks? I'd hate to DM a group like that. It's really up to the group's playing style.

[Flickerdart]

Yes, railroading can be annoying. But my players have never complained, mainly because my stories are rarely thought up fully beforehand, other than a vague continuation and a vague finish way down the road. One campaign went exactly the way it was supposed to, although the players seem to have a habit of blowing up things that I rather liked, using the fact that they're linked with a magic-devouring evil to do so. Sometimes not on purpose, but rules are rules.
Another campaign had the players themselves unleash a horde of undead on a city where before I had intended for an NPC to do it. He betrayed them anyways. The first game still has a DMPC, but I'm planning to have him die somehow. The other game has never had one, but a few NPCs that I felt I played up too much either died or were the guy that betrayed them. One's still alive, but he hasn't actually done anything yet (the one that died had ravaged the PCs in combat once before on account of them failing at strategy. Then they got to save her ass, so it was even).

[RPGuru1331]

I must point out a simple necessity that can make "Playing" a DMPC at least feel like a necessity;

The game in question is not something that a GM can reasonably expect to be a part of as a player. Not generally an issue in vanilla anything (For instance, don't do this in Vanilla Exalted or Regular old Dungeon Crawls in Dungeons and Dragons), but if it's on the rare side for your circle of friends (Spelljammer in a modern Dungeons and Dragons edition, En Nomine or Nobilis in a group of normal people, etc,) then there is some force in the idea of letting the GM 'play'. Every warning given thus far is still pretty relevant however. If you do not diminish the players in the process, and others have gone into that quite well, I feel, then there is no issue. It's a tricky line to walk, however. Aside from some sort of 'utility' role (A healer in dungeons and dragons, for instance), a jack of all trades role may be best, as it's not possible to take center stage without something you can master. And no, the.. what was it, Factoturn? Doesn't count. They're too good at it.

[Flickerdart]

Aside from some sort of 'utility' role (A healer in dungeons and dragons, for instance), a jack of all trades role may be best, as it's not possible to take center stage without something you can master. And no, the.. what was it, Factoturn? Doesn't count. They're too good at it.

Factotum, yes.

Oh, also, buffing will go over well. Exemplars, Marshals, and so on. The only thing players love more than not having to bother with things like deciding who gets to dump points into Open Lock or take healing spells is becoming more awesome, for free.

[Frosty]

I actually have 2 regular DMPCs formy group. They don't necessarily go on every adventure with the PCs. One is a level higher than the group and fills a role that has been completely missing: Namely that of skillmonkey and sometimes face. The other one is 2 levels lower than the party, and is kind of like a free cohort that will ask for directions in battle, but doesn't follow orders 100% of the time. So far, my players have been ok with them.

I think as long as the DMPCs don't overshadow the party and helps the plot and along, they're alright. The higher level character is a beguiler who buffs a lot, making the others fight better, and the lower level character is a blaster sorcerer. Neither really takes the spotlight.

[FMArthur]

One is a level higher than the group and fills a role that has been completely missing: Namely that of skillmonkey and sometimes face.

I know you've said that your players are totally fine with your NPCs, but this did remind me that the most dangerous, obvious DMPC alarm is definitely letting one be the party face. (This is addressed at the thread at large, not you) I cannot emphasize this enough: talking for the party is about as risky for an NPC as winning a battle for them. Doesn't matter how stupidly bad at roleplaying and interaction the party is. Even if every single one dumped Charisma and never put points into Diplomacy, having someone else talk for them makes the players feel like they don't have an influence on dialogue or story events.

Times to let an NPC do the talking:

• Every party member has decided to leave it up to the NPC
• Using one as a buffer to translate barbarian-speak to address royalty without being hanged.
• A villain who has taken control of the party somehow (magically, politically, etc). They will hate him more for it.

[Frosty]

She lets the others do the talking unless the others are clearly not up to the task and has been asked by the PCs to do the talking. She's more than happy to stay in the background collecting part of the loot (loot is adjusted upwards whenever the DMPCs are entitled to a share so the PCs will still keep up with WBL). Since she is the leader of the thieves' guild sometimes she is the only one with the right connections.

[JaxGaret]

NPCs are fine. DMPCs are not. It's as simple as that.

All you need to do is think about what the fundamental differences between an NPC and a PC are, and you'll understand what the difference between an NPC and a DMPC is.

[Raum]

All railroading is not negative.

That's why I said to make sure you know how much the players are comfortable with.

I also think that if I spend hours on an encounter or dungeon or what have you, and the party says "Nah. Let's take a ship instead and bypass those haunted mountains," Stuff will happen that they'll still find the ruined temple full of undead, maybe somewhere else, but they'll find it.

It sounds like you're saying the players' desires don't matter to you. Is that a correct interpretation? You don't let players avoid going someplace when they attempt to do so?

Well, sometimes it's hard to accommodate a nonstandard party.

If the players feel a lack, let them hire an NPC. Remember, I defined hirelings separately from DMPCs.

I must point out a simple necessity that can make "Playing" a DMPC at least feel like a necessity;

The game in question is not something that a GM can reasonably expect to be a part of as a player.

Is running a DMPC really 'playing'? I've seen the excuse used before but have never understood why someone would equate running a DMPC in their own game with playing in another. Besides, I have as much fun in the GM roll as in the player roll. If you don't, why GM?

I actually have 2 regular DMPCs formy group. They don't necessarily go on every adventure with the PCs. One is a level higher than the group and fills a role that has been completely missing: Namely that of skillmonkey and sometimes face. The other one is 2 levels lower than the party, and is kind of like a free cohort that will ask for directions in battle, but doesn't follow orders 100% of the time. So far, my players have been ok with them.

I think as long as the DMPCs don't overshadow the party and helps the plot and along, they're alright. The higher level character is a beguiler who buffs a lot, making the others fight better, and the lower level character is a blaster sorcerer. Neither really takes the spotlight.

I'm not sure it's possilbe to run a DMPC in a face roll and not take the spotlight. Haven't you turned the players into an audience during those scenes?

-----
I have a challenge for those arguing in favor of DMPCs. Take them out of the party and let the party know they can look for a different hireling to fill the roll. If you leave it up to the players I'd bet at least 50% won't bother. Even when they do you'll see a different dynamic in the group. Put the players in control of their own destiny and they're far less likely to rely on the DM to save them. Or to blame the DM when things go south.

Just a thought.

[The Minx]

A world without powerful and important NPCs in it is like a novel with only the main protagonists and paper cut out characters. If you want role-playing interaction between the world and the players that involves real storytelling, you must include well fleshed-out NPC characters, and some of these may have to be more powerful than the PCs themselves. Mentors and patrons, for instance.

The problem is when the NPCs make the players feel redundant. They are the ones running the main characters of the story, after all, and the DM should not give the impression that he wants to co-opt that role. As long as major characters don't risk becoming protagonists, you're OK.

However, if players still complain about DMPCs even then, they might want to play a pure hack and slash game like Munchkin instead of a role-playing game.


EDIT: a quick add-on. If you make sure that the players feel that the powerful NPCs you introduce are necessary to move on their characters' story, and without them there would be no storyline in which they are the heroes, you are doing yourself a favor.

[FoE]

It sounds like you're saying the players' desires don't matter to you. Is that a correct interpretation? You don't let players avoid going someplace when they attempt to do so?

Yes and no. Railroading is bad, but if the DM has gone to the trouble of planning an adventure, it's not fair to him/her to simply toss those plans aside when the PCs "don't feel like going into that dungeon". A smart DM will find a way to re-work parts of the adventure into the new direction the PCs are going. For example, a room with an owlbear in it becomes a forest grove with an owlbear in it.

Sure, it's important for a DM to be able to improvise, but that doesn't mean he should have to make up everything on the spot as the game goes along just 'cause the PCs feel like thwarting the DM's plans.

[Limos]

The one and only time I ran a campaign that lasted more than one encounter I had a DMPC that was a generic Dwarven Cleric. (None of my PCs wanted to do it.)

It worked out okay. He just sat in the background and threw heals where needed. I didn't min/max him at all. Which frustrated my RulesLawyer/MinMaxer to no end. He kept trying to make me turn it into a Clericzilla but I just had him be mediocre. (The MinMaxer got annoying enough with his stupid two weapon fighting cheese that I had a minotaur rip off his arm. That'll teach him to abuse the system.)

[ZeroNumerous]

I ran several "DMPCs" in a Bleach d20 game recently.

One in particular I used rather frequently, though he mostly tagged along with the party to provide them martial assistance as they were composed of two (3.5 equivalent) Psions and a Barbarian. He had abit of Sneak Attack and mostly dealt damage but only fought one-handed and didn't Power Attack. So he never overshadowed the Barbarian-equivalent except when he "nova'd" and started taking CON damage to deal more d6s(something like 36d6?). Obviously that made him extremely vulnerable as generally he'd have 1 CON left over afterwards.

Story-wise, he was a subordinate to both players who were 'new' to being in charge. He gave abit of advice, but otherwise let them operate on their own unless they asked for assistance. Ultimately, I planned to kill him off in a semi-complicated plot involving betrayal and murder on everyone's part. In the end, I don't think I had any complaints about that particular DMPC.

Others were various individuals ranging from a skill-monkey to another beatstick. They were tasked with taking care of the DMPCs because they were immediate superiors over said DMPCs. Instead of forcing it on them, I just gave them several DMPCs and told them that those people were members of their squad. They naturally took a leadership-role and did their best to keep those DMPCs alive without any nudging on my part.

In short: I think DMPCs are valid story-line tools if you don't force them onto the party. Let the party assume "ownership" of the DMPCs on their own and they'll come to like the DMPC rather than hate it.

[Frosty]

I'm not sure it's possilbe to run a DMPC in a face roll and not take the spotlight. Haven't you turned the players into an audience during those scenes?

-----
I have a challenge for those arguing in favor of DMPCs. Take them out of the party and let the party know they can look for a different hireling to fill the roll. If you leave it up to the players I'd bet at least 50% won't bother. Even when they do you'll see a different dynamic in the group. Put the players in control of their own destiny and they're far less likely to rely on the DM to save them. Or to blame the DM when things go south.

Just a thought.

The players *are* an audience for certain (small) parts of the game. DnD is story-telling at its core. Now, it is a very interactive storyline that requires audience participation 95% of the time, but there are little bits where story exposition takes place, and it happens to occur within a conversation between NPCs. And it just so happens sometimes NPCs adventure with the party. Is it a *tad* railroading at time? Yes. My group is very much fine with that. I letmy group roam free most of the time, but sometimes there are just things that must happen in order to advance the plot.

My players interact a lot with the NPCs, but sometimes, in-character, their characters just don't *want* to be the ones talking, so they send the Beguiler forward. The lower level sorcerer is a potential love interest for the wizard and sometimes extra fire power, and sometimes plot device.

The point is, they've come to like the two NPCs that adventure with them sometimes, tending to think of them as actually part of the adventuring group instead of inferior beings.

[Rinzy]

I have an NPC that has grown tremendously popular with my players, enough so that I’m going to play him as my next PC in the campaign that is starting up after mine finishes. He was one of many NPCs that I designed for the urban story arc, any or all of which the players might have chosen to interact with. They all started with a couple traits and quirks each and I developed them more fully as needed. This particular one is a Hexblade/Dragon Disciple with some homebrew tweaks, so it’s not overly powerful anyhow. The players just kept coming back to his guy, to the point that I decided to use him as a DMPC in one fight (though his actions were largely spent protecting a second unconscious NPC that the party had just rescued) and a duex ex machine in a situation where one player’s silly actions were going to get the entire party killed.

Now it’s about three months later. The party still loves him, in fact one of the PCs has fallen in love WITH him. So I’ve decided that I’m going to let him ‘join’ the party as a pet NPC, but not before I knock him down a few notches. One of the other PCs is in the middle of a personal side plot that will, though circumstances that would take a rude amount of time to explain, result in said Hexblade/Dragon Disciple becoming what amounts to an Aristocrat with inexplicable draconic heritage feats for fluff reasons. Then the character can follow the group around and be minimally useful, but be great for fluff (since that’s why everyone loves him so much anyhow).

The entire point of this anecdote being, DMPCs/Pet NPCs can be great flavor for the group, especially for role play purposes. But as everyone else has already said, don’t let them steal the spotlight. There are plenty of reasons to include one if it’s wanted and it’s all right for them to do cool stuff once in a while, just so long as they don’t totally hog the attention.

I agree that DMPCs taking loot and causing loss of XP is really uncool though >>

[Superglucose]

DMPCs really work if you don't have a solid notion of who's going to be at a given meet.

For instance, I was playing a Greyhawk setting out of a local club at a nearby college which was running during the spring quarter. Some weeks there would be a project due for some classes but not others, and others a different project would be due, etc. We were a large group, with seven or eight players, but on some of these weeks we'd end up with, say, both fighters and the wizard showing up. So the DM ran a DMPC Bard, because often we woudln't know who'd show up until, well, the meet itself, and this way he could plan his adventures around the whole group, and if, say, the skill monkey missed the game? Well the Bard could pick up somewhat. If the face missed a game? If the healer missed a game? And since it was a Bard, and not an optimized at all bard, the net result was we'd get through a dungeon and at the next meet be saying, "Man, we wish you were there... we really needed you." It helped us appreciate our other party members.

So filling a hole in a party is actually a good reason to have a DMPC, because sometimes you have a huge adventure planned where everyone plays a vital, key role in winning the day and fifteen minutes before gametime your skillmonkey calls in saying that he's sorry but he just got food poisoning. Or you left off in the middle of a dungeon and one of the players found out he had to work that day and you couldn't reschedule. DMPCs: because Real Life happens.

Also, Guidance != Railroading. Railroading is when you don't have any options but to plow straight ahead. Guidance is when you say "You might want to consider this..." Frankly, most GMs will at one point or another say something akin to "You might want to check behind the third door on the right" when the players are really stumped. This isn't railroading at all... your players are still perfectly welcome to try other methods (assuming you have other methods of accomplishing the goal), it's just a hint to keep things from stalling out.

[Raum]

Yes and no. Railroading is bad, but if the DM has gone to the trouble of planning an adventure, it's not fair to him/her to simply toss those plans aside when the PCs "don't feel like going into that dungeon".

So you're saying it's ok for the DM to railroad in spite of railroading being 'bad'?

Also, Guidance != Railroading. Railroading is when you don't have any options but to plow straight ahead. Guidance is when you say "You might want to consider this..." Frankly, most GMs will at one point or another say something akin to "You might want to check behind the third door on the right" when the players are really stumped. This isn't railroading at all... your players are still perfectly welcome to try other methods (assuming you have other methods of accomplishing the goal), it's just a hint to keep things from stalling out.

The railroading in your scenario appears to have occurred when the DM created a single point of plot advancement. In other words, having to find whatever is behind 'the third door on the right' is the railroad.

Getting a bit off subject though, the OP asked why people didn't like DMPCs and pet NPCs.

I find the number of DMs claiming universal love for their DMPC sadly amusing. Oddly, I don't see nearly as many players claiming the same love and harmony. Yet there are more players than DMs, aren't there?

It may well work for a given group. But talk to the players. Find out what they want to do in the game. When you talk to them, remember most will be careful about giving criticism for fear of offending a friend. You'll usually get more responses to 'what do you want' than to 'what do you dislike'. I've never had a player tell me they wanted a DMPC in the game.

[ZeroNumerous]

It may well work for a given group. But talk to the players. Find out what they want to do in the game.

I just did. Two out of three didn't have a problem with my DMPC(the only one I've run, no less) at all. The third isn't around to ask.

So I'm finding your response a little condescending as it's a very wide-ranging statement with no actual basis but lumps every DMPC together entirely.

[Kroy]

In my many years of playing RPGs, the best DM I ever had played an DMPC in every single one of his games. He only stole the spotlight away from everyone else once in the five years he DMed.

On the other hand, I've had several other DMs who played DMPCs and would hide treasure that they would be the ones to find and use, make subplots about their DMPCs, and solve all the puzzles for us.