Acceptable DMPCs

[BRC]

Picture the situation. Your sitting down for the first game of a new campaign, you've got your rules legal character sheet built to an appropriate level of power, maybe you entered the room with a friend, so you're chatting and joking around, maybe linking your two characters backstories, or discussing some synergistic strategy the two of you are going to try. You sit down and get ready to play some DnD.

The DM enters, sits down, greets his players, and begins to set up. The usual things come out of his bag, a notebook, no doubt filled with excitement, a couple rulebooks, pencils, dice, a DM screen, and a character sheet. Wait, a Character sheet?
"What's the character sheet for?" you ask as you reach for the bowl of goldfish.
"Oh, it's for the DMPC I'll be running this campaign".
You slump back in your seat, the desire for cheesy fish-shaped snacks forgotten. You now know what to expect. You and your friends will spend the campaign tagging along as a supporting cast to some plot-centric pretty-boy who effortlessly wades through foes the rest of the party finds unbeatable and who is in a position to control the decisions the party makes.


Or is it.

Whenever the topic of DMPC's comes up, the general response is to loudly declare "Anything But".

However, I started to wonder, are there types of DMPC's (here defined as an NPC that regularly accompanies and assists the party) that can work. Obviously, a DMPC that fulfills the role of a party member isn't a good idea except in the smallest of parties. It's usually much better to fill the role in other ways when possible, and any DMPC that participates in combat results in the DM rolling against themselves, which is never a good idea. But are there other functions a DMPC can fulfill.


1) Boring Jobs: A role that needs to be filled. that none of the players can, or want to fill. Now, this isn't a combat role, preferably it's some simple menial task that's basically reliant on one skill rather than a complete character. If the character does find themselves in combat, they should stick to Aid-another checks or getting out of the way and taking a full defense action. Such a DMPC can appear spontaneously due to player decisions rather than being planned.
Example: Bill the Teamster: What, you can't expect a group of adventurers to walk everywhere. With this in mind they acquire the services of Bill the Teamster, who drives them around in a wagon or carriage. He's got ranks in Handle Animal, Ride, Pilot, and Craft (wood) to fix up the wagon. While the PC's are storming the Lich's lair, Bill will wait outside, ready to help them flee if a quick getaway is required.

2) Exposition: It's almost a given that, in DM-designed settings, the DM will know more than the characters will, especially if the DM is like me and is making up fluff as he goes along. The Player's probably don't feel like memorizing every detail of the world you designed in case some of it becomes useful, and some of it will be too esoteric for the PC's characters to have heard about. Which is where this guy comes in, usually a scholar of some sort, the Exposition is loaded with Knowledge skills and not much else. If the PC's need somebody to read the ancient runes, or tell them the proper way to ask a favor from a Dragon, this guy can prove useful. This isn't an essential DMPC, and there are other ways to solve the problem, but using this type of DMPC isn't that intrusive.
Example: Professor Jonathan Landre, a scholar who spent most of his life in one form of university or another, and now seeks some real-world experience. Maybe he hired the PC's as bodyguards, or he's just tagging along. In combat, his first instinct will be to dive for cover and take full defense actions until the noise stops.
3) Nonstandard Mechanic: So the DM has an awesome idea for a game mechanic, but for one reason or another, a PC isn't going to use it. Maybe none of them want to, or it's not developed enough for him to trust them with it. So the DM gives it to a DMPC where he can control how it's used. Now, for the same reason described above, this mechanic should not be combat based, but it can have out-of-combat purposes.
Example: Doc Brown. The party lacks a healer of any sort, but they're tough enough to survive through encounters without healing. However, they want some patching up afterwards. With this in mind, the DM gives the party Doc Brown, who uses a different healing method. A combination of healing magic and first aid/surgery that let's him heal the party but takes too long to be used in-combat. In battle, Doc Brown does everything in his power to get out of the way of both sides, only emerging afterwords to patch the PC's up if necessary.

[Yukitsu]

The first guy is a hireling, and does not require a character sheet.

Guy two is best as someone not brought with you, because I don't know of any walking dictionaries that don't fight wandering into war zones.

Either way, I wouldn't call either a DMPC, as neither acts as a PC.

[Melamoto]

I agree with you on all points. When the DM runs a stupid DMPC, then that's just a power trip. This stops most people from realising that DMPCs, when done right, are very useful and likeable. One example is that in a game I'm running where the group has no healers, I'm running a Cleric who specialises in healing and has almost no other real purpose, although he does draw in a lot of plot hooks.

[Tyndmyr]

Possible functions for DMPCs:
Corpse.
Blinded, shackled pack mule.
Firewood.
Man who combines the bag of holding with the portable hole.
Sacrificial offering.
Slave in the salt mines.
Fulfilling the prerequisite for Assassin.



The thing is, none of the roles you listed need a DMPC. A simple henchman for the party is quite sufficient.

[Yukitsu]

I think DMPC needs to be removed from the concept of hireling, which I still find superfluos, as there is no such thing as an essential party role, when the DM knows what they are doing.

[Telonius]

I really don't like running DMPCs. I'd make a very specific exception if I only have a small (read: 3 or fewer) group of beginner players where nobody wants to play a healer. In that case, the DMPC will have taken a vow of "don't do anything offensive," and be Sawbones McHealbot. I'd prefer to grant one of the characters a free Leadership before I even do that; even Gestalt would be preferable. But if the players are inexperienced enough, DMPC is probably the best solution.

Another very specific exception would be a traveling companion for a discrete amount of time. Gary the Guide might accompany a low-level party through the jungle, and maybe point out some velociraptor tracks to prevent the characters from being eaten. But after that adventure, he's done. He'll generally act more like a "helpful NPC" than a DMPC, even though I'll be the one directing his actions.

[Gamerlord]

5. The ends to a mean: The DMPC may last for one session or many, but the DM has ensured that his time will come when he is no longer needed
Example: Samson the fighter hires the party to go with him to slay the dragon that killed his father. He aids them in the insanely difficult encounters you throw at the party, only to be killed at the beginning of the fight with the dragon via DM fiat.

[BRC]

The first guy is a hireling, and does not require a character sheet.

Guy two is best as someone not brought with you, because I don't know of any walking dictionaries that don't fight wandering into war zones.

Either way, I wouldn't call either a DMPC, as neither acts as a PC.

Remember how I defined a DMPC in the post, an NPC who regularly accompanies and assists the player characters. In that way, they are both DMPC's.
A DMPC that acts as a PC is doing something that should either be done by a PC, or the adventure should be organized such that it isn't necessary.

As for Bill the Teamster being a Hireling, and therefore not a DMPC. Technically, Bill could be a Hireling, a game mechanic, a mute who does nothing but drive the PC's around.
But, if he stays with the PC's long enough, it will become necessary that he have some sort of character sheet. He'll need several skills. The Party could get ambushed on the road, and they'll need to know Bill's Will save. A hireling he may be, but that's not to say he can't be a complete character.

[Tyndmyr]

I have personally played in all sorts of parties, including mono-class parties(all rogues, all wizards, etc). Unusual parties may work differently, but there is no one required class at all in 3.5.

Why is a DMPC preferred over a hireling? I mean...if you only want the party to have a healbot, why not just let them hire an inexpensive guy with only healing skills? Why does the DM need this control if he's really, really, honest I swear, not gonna use it for anything else?

[BRC]

5. The ends to a mean: The DMPC may last for one session or many, but the DM has ensured that his time will come when he is no longer needed
Example: Samson the fighter hires the party to go with him to slay the dragon that killed his father. He aids them in the insanely difficult encounters you throw at the party, only to be killed at the beginning of the fight with the dragon via DM fiat.

Ah, now here is where we disagree. Samson works if he is killed by DM fiat the first time he get's into a fight, but he shouldn't engage in combat. You then get the PC's watching as you roll against yourself, which is a situation you should do everything in your power to avoid.

[Tyndmyr]

Remember how I defined a DMPC in the post, an NPC who regularly accompanies and assists the player characters. In that way, they are both DMPC's.

This would include such things as a PC's cohort. It would also disclude NPCs that fail to be of assistance. IE, the jerk you can't get rid of.

You can't solve the disagreement over DMPCs by simply changing the definition to something non-standard.

[Dimers]

Technically, Bill could be a Hireling, a game mechanic, a mute who does nothing but drive the PC's around.
But, if he stays with the PC's long enough, it will become necessary that he have some sort of character sheet. He'll need several skills. The Party could get ambushed on the road, and they'll need to know Bill's Will save. A hireling he may be, but that's not to say he can't be a complete character.

And filling him out a bit will help provide some flavor and verisimilitude to the players' experience of the gameworld.

[Yukitsu]

Actually, they stat hirelings in the DMG. Going anymore than that other than bits of personality is a bit of a waste, as it's not like you can justify using rolled stats and special class combinations for the guy.

[BRC]

This would include such things as a PC's cohort. It would also disclude NPCs that fail to be of assistance. IE, the jerk you can't get rid of.

You can't solve the disagreement over DMPCs by simply changing the definition to something non-standard.

I'm not intending to solve the disagreement over DMPC's by changing the definition. But for the purposes of this thread, I'm using the term in a specific way to cover everything from hirelings to, as you pointed out, a player's cohort (Which would only be A DMPC if the DM controlled it). Hireling describes why the NPC is helping the party, not their state.
For example, Bill the Teamster is a hireling because the PC's paid him to drive them around, but that's not the only way Bill could be working for the party. Maybe the PC's saved his life after his village was destroyed. He wants to help them out in the best way he can, which considering his skill set means driving them around.

By that same token, the PC's could hire Max Killmuch, a legendary warrior who happens to work for the PC's on a 10g/Year contract, and basically wins every fight for them. However, since he was hired, he's technically a hireling, so saying Hirelings Good, DMPC's Bad! dosn't work.

[Tyndmyr]

Actually, they stat hirelings in the DMG. Going anymore than that other than bits of personality is a bit of a waste, as it's not like you can justify using rolled stats and special class combinations for the guy.

You don't have to, but you can have flavorful personality, etc with preset stats, since stats don't force you to follow any given attitude. Likewise, alignment can vary.

I do think, though, that players can spice up hirelings too. After all, the DM isn't the only one who develops flavor and personality for characters, as PCs certainly can have that.

Hirelings also have expanded options available in other books. I can't recall them all off the top of my head, but Arms and Equipment had some.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I've used a DMPC more as someone to guide characters around in a more structured game, i.e. as part of a military unit where they need to follow orders, and subsequently get killed/disappeared/promoted once he's served his purpose.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not intending to solve the disagreement over DMPC's by changing the definition. But for the purposes of this thread, I'm using the term in a specific way to cover everything from hirelings to, as you pointed out, a player's cohort (Which would only be A DMPC if the DM controlled it). Hireling describes why the NPC is helping the party, not their state.

You didn't specify controlling in the definition. You did specify assisting.

By specifying DMPCs as characters that are assisting the party, you are automatically discluding the possibility of DMPCs that hurt the party. In other words, you are precluding disagreement by changing the definition.

[Telonius]

I have personally played in all sorts of parties, including mono-class parties(all rogues, all wizards, etc). Unusual parties may work differently, but there is no one required class at all in 3.5.

Why is a DMPC preferred over a hireling? I mean...if you only want the party to have a healbot, why not just let them hire an inexpensive guy with only healing skills? Why does the DM need this control if he's really, really, honest I swear, not gonna use it for anything else?

Depends on the situation. If the players are starting out in a rural area, magic-using hirelings might be hard to come by.

As I see it, the best (maybe the only) reason to use a full-fledged DMPC at all is if the players are really just starting out and getting a handle on the rules. It's not an issue of DM control, it's an issue of not overwhelming the players while they're still getting to know what their characters are capable of doing. A statted-out healer under DM control is probably the best way to do this. If one of the players is capable of handling a hireling or a cohort, I'd go with that before DMPC.

[Gpope]

By that same token, the PC's could hire Max Killmuch, a legendary warrior who happens to work for the PC's on a 10g/Year contract, and basically wins every fight for them. However, since he was hired, he's technically a hireling, so saying Hirelings Good, DMPC's Bad! dosn't work.

If the PC's say "We need a walking deus ex machina, consult the yellow pages and find someone we can hire", he's a hireling.

If the DM says "You need a hireling, have this guy. No, you can't fire him," he's a DMPC.

I think having NPCs periodically tag along with the party is fine and dandy, the problem is when an NPC is inserted by the DM as an integral member of the party (this includes concocting a storyline where the PCs are screwed if they don't drag the NPC along at all times.)

[Doug Lampert]

As a DM, ask yourself, "Is there any reason I SHOULDN'T just give this allied NPC to one of the players and let him run two characters?" I'm running the whole world here and all the opposition, let someone else run the glorified and overpowered henchman with a bit of general guidance from me.

If that's not reasonable, then the DMPC is probably a bad idea except as a (very) rarely present NPC.

But if it is reasonable, then at least in combat hand the character sheet to a player if you've got anyone willing to run two characters (they'll do a worse job with the character they're not familiar with, but that's fine; I think the DMPC shouldn't be run as optimized as the PCs). If you don't have anyone willing to run two characters then run the DMPC yourself and if your players think they're being overshadowed at least they how they can solve the problem.

4th edition has rules for companion characters in DMG II, I wasn't that impressed by them, but I've had good luck with "monsters" or NPC as allies. The fact that they have only 1 healing surge per tier and far fewer powers puts a real damper on their ability to overshadow the PCs even if they are "more powerful" or higher level.

[BRC]

You didn't specify controlling in the definition. You did specify assisting.

By specifying DMPCs as characters that are assisting the party, you are automatically discluding the possibility of DMPCs that hurt the party. In other words, you are precluding disagreement by changing the definition.

An NPC that hurts the party is generally considered an Antagonist of some sort.

I specified NPC, which, if I remember correctly, means a character controlled by the DM. At least, that's the way I and the people I talk to use the word.

[Gamerlord]

Ah, now here is where we disagree. Samson works if he is killed by DM fiat the first time he get's into a fight, but he shouldn't engage in combat. You then get the PC's watching as you roll against yourself, which is a situation you should do everything in your power to avoid.

He helped them, he did not do everything awesome, he died in this manner:

Me: "You enter the next cavern, a long bridge connects to the next area, Samson starts to walk across the bridge, but just then you hear a vicious roar, a black shadow swoops down and grabs Samson, you hear screams and shouting, and then a sickening CRUUUUUUUUUNCH! His sword falls to the ground with a simple clunk, roll initiative."

Not exactly too awesome, the PCs then did some pretty awesome stuff in that battle.

[BRC]

He helped them, he did not do everything awesome, he died in this manner:

Me: "You enter the next cavern, a long bridge connects too the next area, Samson starts to walk across the bridge, but just then you hear a vicious roar, a black shadow swoops down and grabs Samson, you gear screams and shouting, and then a sickening CRUUUUUUUUUNCH! His sword falls on the ground, roll initiative."

Not exactly too awesome, the PCs then did some pretty awesome stuff in that battle.

Which, if that's the first time he gets into combat, is a perfect way to use such a character. If, however, Samson was responsible for helping the PC's chop their way through the monsters guarding the Dragon's lair, then you have a problem, because during those combats Samson was doing things the PC's should have been doing themselves. The Player's don't want to watch you rolling against yourself, so even if Samson did exactly 0 damage during that fight, his turns still took time, time during which the Players were all just waiting.

[RandomNPC]

I find the only good DMPC is in small groups when nobody want's to play the cleric. They run around healing people and making heal checks, when things get really hairy maybe they hit something with a mace or heavy crossbow, but only when they need it.

[Fhaolan]

So NPCs never fight each other, ever? The entire world breaks down into two groups, NPCs that can't fight (the one's that are nominally on the PC's side), and enemy NPCs that all belong to one unified whole that never disagrees with itself...?

90% of my gaming group's actions is to get the NPCs to fight each other. The second a PC actually make an attack roll, the players think they've failed.

[Yzzyx]

An acceptable DMPC is a DMPC that does not interfere with the fun of the game. Exactly what this is varies by group. The term 'DMPC' is often used with a negative implication, so it is not a good sign if a character is called such rather than simply being an NPC.

[Hashmir]

I'm starting a solo 4e game with my girlfriend, where most of the party is sort of half-DMPCs. One character is outright "hers," and she is the party face and leader.

The other characters have backstories and personalities defined and controlled by me, but they are specifically designed to A) balance each other out such that the main character always get to make the choice, and B) have personalities while actually talking/doing as little as possible. During combat and skill challenges, she has complete control over the entire party's actions, under the (abstracted) presumption that they do whatever she wants anyway.

All in all, I think it's working pretty well. This might not be an example of a DMPC per se, but I think it shares a lot of the same potential pitfalls.

[Gamerlord]

Which, if that's the first time he gets into combat, is a perfect way to use such a character. If, however, Samson was responsible for helping the PC's chop their way through the monsters guarding the Dragon's lair, then you have a problem, because during those combats Samson was doing things the PC's should have been doing themselves. The Player's don't want to watch you rolling against yourself, so even if Samson did exactly 0 damage during that fight, his turns still took time, time during which the Players were all just waiting.

"Samson attacks the elite kobold warrior, dealing a grievous blow to it"

[sarcasm]Oh my, that took sooooooooo much time away from my players![sarcasm]

[Hashmir]

Which, if that's the first time he gets into combat, is a perfect way to use such a character. If, however, Samson was responsible for helping the PC's chop their way through the monsters guarding the Dragon's lair, then you have a problem, because during those combats Samson was doing things the PC's should have been doing themselves. The Player's don't want to watch you rolling against yourself, so even if Samson did exactly 0 damage during that fight, his turns still took time, time during which the Players were all just waiting.

I see where you're coming from, but what about situations like 4e's "man with the canaries" form of Bahamut? He's specifically designed to join the party and buff them so they can fight encounters 10 levels higher than usual.

Of course, the key here is that he buffs the party, rather than doing their fighting for them. But he's still taking actions every turn, so obviously combat participation can't always be a bad thing.

[BRC]

So NPCs never fight each other, ever? The entire world breaks down into two groups, NPCs that can't fight (the one's that are nominally on the PC's side), and enemy NPCs that all belong to one unified whole that never disagrees with itself...?

90% of my gaming group's actions is to get the NPCs to fight each other. The second a PC actually make an attack roll, the players think they've failed.

NPC's do fight each other, just not where the DM has to roll for it while the PC's are waiting around.

As for your second point, then you're running a very different style of game than I do, and I applaud you for it.

@ Gamerkid if that's all that happened, then no it's not a problem. But even simple rolls can cause problems, My 5 3rd level PC's versus 3 CR2 monsters somehow seem to eat up loads of time. So yeah, I'd be careful. If your PC's arn't minding his involvement, then it's a non-issue, so go right ahead. Personally, I'd shy away from that, but that's just me.

Okay, I need to start getting homework done.