A Note On DMPCs

[Serpentine]

I've gotten into big arguments before about DMPCs. It's pretty well established that I'm fine with well-played ones.
For various reasons, I decided I'd remove my own from the game. These reasons included the arrival of a couple of new players, the fact that one player said once he prefers not to have them (although he didn't mind mine), that one new character is fairly similar in niche to her, etc.
So, my DMPC took aside another long-running character, and told her that, the next time she died, she shouldn't waste her money resurrecting her, just as long as she'd make sure to return her shield to her family. Not much later, she was stabbed to death in her bed and said shield stolen.
As soon as they realised she was dead, one of the characters (played by the same guy who said he preferred no DMPCs) stabbed our knife-that-can-Raise Dead into her to resurrect her. I was all "I was gonna get rid of her sillybuggers!" and gave them a choice: You could proceed with the resurrection, or she could be Unwilling so it would fail and we'd be down a DMPC.
They all declared that they wanted her back in the party. Especially the guy who said he didn't really like DMPCs. So, she came back.

My players won't let me get rid of my DMPC.
Whut.

[2-HeadedGiraffe]

You could have just made the call to have her be unwilling. You're the DM. Ultimately, you choose what happens to any given NPC. If they can't bring her back, that ought to have a huge impact on a group of characters and players who are so obviously attached to her.

[Serpentine]

...yes, I could have. I said that But the players wanted her, so I let them have her.

[Tengu_temp]

You've created an NPC the players like so much they're willing to share spotlight with it. Well done. Many DMs fail to do that.

[Drascin]

Yeah, that happens with NPCs sometimes - players just like them. The problem with DMPCs is usually favoritism and giving them too much attention and plot power, and showing up other players. If she's doing nothing of the sort there's going to be no reason for the players to want a character removed - to them, it's just a friendly NPC they like, not the annoying DMPC that is better than all of them combined (which, by the way, I had my first experience with yesterday, trying a module under a player at my club. Now I understand why many people are so traumatized against such things... ). People like friendly NPCs.

Really, it's not unusual. It's happened to me in several campaigns. The players like an NPC so much they basically adopt him, groom him into an equal, and have him as much a member of a team as anyone. Then swear bloody vengeance when they inevitably die, because I'm much less merciful on NPCs than PCs .

[Serpentine]

I really am baffled by this insistence that if a DMPC isn't awful, then it must rather be an NPC.

[Drascin]

I really am baffled by this insistence that if a DMPC isn't awful, then it must rather be an NPC.

The difference isn't awfulness, it's protagonism. You can actually have pretty good DMPCs. But the litmus test here is a simple question: do you think of her as "the character you play in the game" or as "a character in the world"? The first is a DMPC. The second is an NPC. That's really the only difference.

[Serpentine]

She is the character I play in my game.

[Paseo H]

I second the 'well done.'

I also find it funny when someone I want to become important to the player is barely given more than a second glance, but he ends up becoming overly attatched to someone completely surprising.

[Tengu_temp]

I really am baffled by this insistence that if a DMPC isn't awful, then it must rather be an NPC.

DMPCs are NPCs.

[true_shinken]

Well done, Serpentine!
I never make DMPCs, but time and time again my players grow fond of NPCs I never intended them to like (like Flork, the cowardly goblin paladin with maxed Hide).

[Jarawara]

Plus, it appears it's quest-time, to get the shield back that was stolen. Kudos to providing a seemless entry into a new adventure, so that the 'adventures' will be player chosen, not DM-chosen.

[Serpentine]

Oh, we did that. Her shield'd actually already been nicked once, but they got caught. Spoilered for TMI

Spoiler

Show

The plan (roughly - if it didn't happen, no loss, and I made sure there were resurrection options if it was only a partlyPK) was for the party to get slaughtered by the Naztharune Rakshasa and her lackeys while trying to retrieve it, and then get resurrected and hired (/pressganged) by the (epic level Rakshasa) person behind it all into another side-quest.
We ended up thrashing the thief ( No more holding back for these people!), catching her alive, and demanding to know where the shield was. Again, I gave them a choice (just cuz this wasn't the way I was expecting it to go): the shield could be somewhere that would probably result in severe danger and a side-quest (with said epic level Rakshasa boss, in which case we'd be back with my original plan when they try to confront him), or it could be nearby (in the basement) and we go on as usual. They picked the latter... and then they decided they were determined to track down the person in charge, which will probably result in their deaths and/or getting pressganged into a side-quest
Now I've gotta stat out an epic level Rakshasa that I never intended them to actually come into conflict with...

[Drascin]

She is the character I play in my game.

You must not be too attached to her if you were so insistent on having her die, then. Did you have another concept you wanted to try for your next one? (generally, when my players start being suicidal, it's because they've had an idea for another character that tickles their fancy more than their current one. It's quite funny to see the normally levelheaded character conspicuously try to solo, say, a tank with a club. I keep telling them, we can retire characters while alive, you know, but they seem to find it funnier that way ).

But anyway, jokes aside, basically that's the distinction - a DMPC implies a level of attachment to one particular NPC, a bit of the DM feeling the "this is my character, my only real and most important piece in the game, I should play him to my best" feeling that players have towards their characters, that is very risky on a DM's hands - because in our heads, our characters are always cool and their stories play out with appropiate drama and awesome... but then reality happens, and we make do and develop the character in surprising ways. Except that when the person who plays them is also the person who decides aforementioned reality... well, that has a pretty high risk of getting out of hand very fast, as it's human nature to be instinctively more favorable to those things that bring us special enjoyment. That's why people are usually against DMPCs - on average, the risk of it ending badly is pretty huge.

But you have, apparently, managed to pull it off without inadvertently playing favorites, which is quite commendable. So congratulations indeed, Serpentine.

[Comet]

Here's my thoughts on the matter:

There is no such thing as a DMPC.

There. DMPC means "Dungeon Master Player Character", right? But the DM, or GM, can not be a Player, since they are fulfilling another role. As such, DMs cannot have Player Characters. Sure, they can have characters but those are, by definition, Non-Player Characters, since they are being played by something else than a Player.
Notice the capital letters here, everyone at the table is a player but only those who are not Game Mastering can be Players with a capital P. Player Characters belong to Players.

So, if we can agree that a DMPC is a silly term, I would continue from that point by stating that there are two kinds of NPCs.

Good NPCs.
Bad NPCs.

And that's it. Serp's character is a good NPC, apparently. The bad "DMPC" is just a bad NPC that gains too much attention from the Dungeon Master.

[valadil]

...yes, I could have. I said that But the players wanted her, so I let them have her.

This is why you run successful DMPCs. You put them there if the players want them. The other kind of DMPC shows up even if they players don't want them. The problem isn't so much the DMPC as it is the DM who does what he wants to the game, with no regard for how the players feel about it.

[Oracle_Hunter]

There. DMPC means "Dungeon Master Player Character", right? But the DM, or GM, can not be a Player, since they are fulfilling another role. As such, DMs cannot have Player Characters.

No.

For the reasons you have stated, a DM should not have a Player Character in a game they are running. However, some DMs do - these are DMPCs.

Here is a good description of how a DMPC can go wrong. If you avoid these pitfalls you can run a DMPC without harming a game but it can be very hard. Serp seems to be doing OK on that end; not everyone is as good at this as she is.

Also: Not all parties are the same. Some parties love taking the Plot Train to town; others like playing back-up to Gandalf and serving a smaller part in a bigger story. Like any storytelling tool know your audience before using a DMPC.

[Psyx]

Then let choice rather than death take the character away. Maybe they have a quest of their own, or want to visit family.
You should use the NPC's choice to ram home to the PCs things that they may not have thought about doing with their own characters... duty to family, or church, or nation, or whatever... or something else appropriate.

An NPC leaving for strong character reasons is a great opportunity to prompt your PCs into really thinking about matters for themselves.

I really am baffled by this insistence that if a DMPC isn't awful, then it must rather be an NPC.

One plays a PC to 'win', and to complete character goals IC and OOC - levelling, getting loot, etc. Therefore, one plays a PC to the best of one's abilities, within the structure of imposed Roleplaying limitations. If a GM plays an NPC 'to win' as it were, then they have created a Mary Sue or a character who has an edge over the other players.


I think DMPCs are awful. All of them. Never have an NPC who you won't have drown in a cess-pit in the next scene, or who you'd get upset about if they were murdered for their loot by the PCs. As soon as a GM emotionally attaches to NPCs they start being biased, and the NPCs start to suck. Enormously.

As a GM; if you 'need' to run a DMPC, then you're on the wrong side of the screen. Otherwise why not use a series of expendable NPCs, or just go without?

[MrEdwardNigma]

I also find it funny when someone I want to become important to the player is barely given more than a second glance, but he ends up becoming overly attatched to someone completely surprising.

Exactly! I'm running my first campaign now, and a character I had only described in my notes as "recruiter" who spends his time buying people drinks in a bar and getting them to sign up for the army has become one of the PCs best friends and most often visited contacts, while some of the PCs I'd put loads of work into got completely passed by or weren't even met.

Of course, they haven't figured out yet he's not just some friendly guy handing out booze...

[HunterOfJello]

I'm in a similar situation.

I have a DMPC and a cohort (not the DMPCs) that I juggle while DMing. I'd like to get rid of the DMPC, but the 2 players seem to like him right now. It's strange that the players like the DMPC because he's CG and they're both evil. However, he is a good healbot and ranged attacker.

I'll probably get rid of him soon and make his death into a plot arc. Something involving demons and his soul trapped where it slowly become corrupted and he could return in the future as a Hellbred would be cool.

[Sipex]

Yeah, I've never understood the vile hate for DMPCs. All my experience with them have so far been good and my own DMPC would be difficult to remove from my group, they like him too much.

Maybe you guys have just had too many bad experiences.

[valadil]

One plays a PC to 'win', and to complete character goals IC and OOC - levelling, getting loot, etc. Therefore, one plays a PC to the best of one's abilities, within the structure of imposed Roleplaying limitations. If a GM plays an NPC 'to win' as it were, then they have created a Mary Sue or a character who has an edge over the other players.

How do you feel about a hypothetical DMPC that isn't played to win?

[BRC]

One plays a PC to 'win', and to complete character goals IC and OOC - levelling, getting loot, etc. Therefore, one plays a PC to the best of one's abilities, within the structure of imposed Roleplaying limitations. If a GM plays an NPC 'to win' as it were, then they have created a Mary Sue or a character who has an edge over the other players.

Not necessarily.
Once, on this board, I said "Suppose somebody makes a DMPC who regularly accompanies the party like a party member, who does not steal the spotlight, and generally makes the Game more fun." Somebody responded "Then That's Not a DMPC".
DMPC's get a bad rap because they are associated with Mary Sue power tripping DM's who drag the players through a plot that exists to show how amazing the DMPC is. People assume that Because the DM COULD make the DMPC a Mary Sue, make encounters that favor them, ect ect, that they WILL.

I think DMPCs are awful. All of them. Never have an NPC who you won't have drown in a cess-pit in the next scene, or who you'd get upset about if they were murdered for their loot by the PCs. As soon as a GM emotionally attaches to NPCs they start being biased, and the NPCs start to suck. Enormously.

As a GM; if you 'need' to run a DMPC, then you're on the wrong side of the screen. Otherwise why not use a series of expendable NPCs, or just go without?

Alright, maybe it's just me, but I feel a DM can run a character, and get emotionally attached to them without compromising their integrity as the DM. I am personally emotionally attached to the PC's my players run, my players are all very close friends, and so, by extension, are their characters. Yet I have no qualms about sending unspeakable horrors their way. I get attached to the villains I create, I spend lots of time crafting their stats and personalities, picturing them in my head, ect. Yet, I don't shed a tear when my PC's blind them and riddle them with bullets.

Don't confuse possibility with inevitability.

That said, I don't like DMPC's, but not because I think they're all spotlight stealing Mary Sues controlled by power tripping DM's. I don't like them for one simple reason: The slow down combat. One of my commandments of DMing is "Thou Shalt not Roll Against Thyself". Not because of any conflict of interest, but because it's boring for the players. While they may get sucked into the action, players in combat are generally just waiting for their turn to begin, whenever you have an NPC under your control fighting another, All the players are bored. A DMPC on the PC's side means not only another round, but more Monsters (or more powerful and complicated monsters) needed to challenge the PC's, all of which slows combat, the downside of adding another player without the benefits of actually having another Player.
Occasionally, I do have "Guest PC's", but I always hand control of them over to the Players.

[Psyren]

They are not universally bad - just very hard to do right. So the general trend of advice to "avoid using them" has some basis.

I just realized I could apply the above statement to Monks and Soulknives

[Psyx]

"Yeah, I've never understood the vile hate for DMPCs. All my experience with them have so far been good and my own DMPC..."

You don't understand it because you use them yourself, I'd hazard. Obviously nobody who despises them would use them
.
If I want an NPC to join the party, then they do so... for a while. They certainly don't leech XP, nor gain it in a formal manner. they are NPC 'extras'. And I don't want to get attached - even subconsciously - because players pick up on non-verbal clues. This can lead to major problems, especially with 'plot critical' NPCs.

If I want a full-time NPC to join the group and grow with the players, then I'll get another player in the group. If -hypothetically- I didn't have enough players for a game, I'd run a game which required less players.


"How do you feel about a hypothetical DMPC that isn't played to win?"

I still don't like them. If they're their roleplaying with the group, the role could be better done by... another player. Alternatively, they are essentially 'stealing' player time. If the party want to roleplay amongst themselves; that's great. If I join in, then they are roleplaying for less time, and it detracts. Besides: When PCs are RPing between themselves, then I generally have far more crucial things to do that actively participate: I have a game and a cast of thousands to run, and can be using that time in a more effective manner.

The point has already been made that they also leech time in combat, and if they look cool in combat then it's lame. If they just heal in combat then they're just a cardboard cut-out and a crutch. The best thing for an NPC to do in combat is cower under furniture: It makes the players look and feel good, and takes no time up.

[Sipex]

"Yeah, I've never understood the vile hate for DMPCs. All my experience with them have so far been good and my own DMPC..."

You don't understand it because you use them yourself, I'd hazard. Obviously nobody who despises them would use them
.
If I want an NPC to join the party, then they do so... for a while. They certainly don't leech XP, nor gain it in a formal manner. they are NPC 'extras'. And I don't want to get attached - even subconsciously - because players pick up on non-verbal clues. This can lead to major problems, especially with 'plot critical' NPCs.

If I want a full-time NPC to join the group and grow with the players, then I'll get another player in the group. If -hypothetically- I didn't have enough players for a game, I'd run a game which required less players.

This is the thing though, I've played with them before too. I just think of it as another character. I dunno, I guess I don't see the DM, running the monsters and the DM, running a character as the same thing.

Also, my players have already stopped me from removing my DMPC on more than one occasion, they said they like him too much. Ditto on trying to give control to them. I actually tried both these things because this board convinced me that "DMPCS ARE THA EVULZ!!!!!!!!!!". Turns out my players disagree.

Also, I've never understood the arguement against DMPCs leech XP thing. If there wasn't a DMPC I'd make the encounters easier so therefore, less EXP. Since I play 4E, encounters are balanced by exp so they lose exactly how much EXP I would've leeched.

Overall (and this isn't a response to you Psyx, I'm just getting my thoughts out) I think those of you out there that are unsure shouldn't let the overall opinion colour your own. Figure it out for yourself and don't always believe what you're told.

[Comet]

For the reasons you have stated, a DM should not have a Player Character in a game they are running. However, some DMs do - these are DMPCs

You say DMPC, I say NPC that the DM treats like their own character. I'm just trying to communicate here that the term DMPC is a bit of a contradiction, hence its negative connotations for many.

Players have Player Characters, Dungeon Masters have Non-Player Characters. Some NPCs might resemble PCs in the amount of attention and fleshing out they get, but semantically they are still very much NPCs, due to them not being played by a Player.

But yeah, this talk about terminology isn't helping anyone, is it? Still, I stand by the notion that as long as everybody at the table is happy with how the DM is running things, there's no need to analyse whether an NPC is really a NPC or DMPC or whatever. They're just characters, some might get more attention than others but they're still all in the same category of "dudes that the DM controls".

[Oracle_Hunter]

You say DMPC, I say NPC that the DM treats like their own character. I'm just trying to communicate here that the term DMPC is a bit of a contradiction, hence its negative connotations for many.

Players have Player Characters, Dungeon Masters have Non-Player Characters. Some NPCs might resemble PCs in the amount of attention and fleshing out they get, but semantically they are still very much NPCs, due to them not being played by a Player.

That's fine, as far as it goes.

However, it becomes difficult to discuss a topic if you negate its existence. It is not that DMPCs don't exist separately from NPCs generally; a DMPC is a specific form of "Non-Player Character" which has unique issues of its own.

N.B. The main reason people fight about terms such as "broken," "overpowered," "versimilitude," and "DMPC" is because their definitions are not set in stone; indeed, few are. IMHO, before opening any sort of thread to discuss the meaning of a term it is helpful to provide a definition of the term you're describing.

In this case, Serp has said "here is my DMPC - a character that I treat as my personal PC while running the game." This definition is in line with an arguably common one which makes it a good place to start a broad discussion on the concept. Trying to redefine the term in the middle of the debate is unhelpful at best.

[true_shinken]

They are not universally bad - just very hard to do right. So the general trend of advice to "avoid using them" has some basis.

I just realized I could apply the above statement to Monks and Soulknives

Oh, I completely agree.
And I loled.

[Gorgondantess]

Huh. Well, most of my players usually end up hating my DMPC's.
Not in the "Wow this guy is stealing the spotlight way", but more in the "Wow this guy is hilariously a jerkass". So they love to hate them.
Then I also had a sort of parole officer DMPC, which was funny because he was actually really nice to them and was just doing his job. They ended up killing him, and feeling really bad about it.
And then, most recently, I DMPC'd a werewolf character who had a string of hilarious critical misses and despite saving their asses half the time was viewed as the most incompetent character ever. I had him play with it and ended up as the buttmonkey- ambushes always targeted him, and I eventually started rolling d12s for his saving throws.