DMPCs - a way to do them right?

[Silus]

So I've been toying with the idea of adding a DMPC to the campaign I'm going to run (Reeeeeeally wanna try out the new Gunslinger class for Pathfinder), but I hear a lot of people not speak kindly of DMPCs. Should I scrap the idea or is there a way to run one without it being crap or annoying or just made of fail?

Edit: I've shifted my sights away from the gunslinger to an Archeologist (Bard)/Wizard multiclass with the express purpose of providing the occasional buff, crafting items for the PCs when they have proved "worthy", and generally giving out advice if so asked.

[DontEatRawHagis]

Do not use it for more than one mission, keep it as NPC as possible and don't say this is my character to your players.

Also avoid using it to give them hints and stuff.

Keep the DMPC at arms length, do not roleplay it as Player it is just another NPC in your book.

My DM's current DMPC is too overpower and too much the center of attention.

Its easier for players to accept a DMPC as a quest giver who needs help getting through a dungeon than as a companion.

[Yukitsu]

You're going to have less trouble, work or both by simply playing a gun slinger in someone else's campaign. It's possible it won't kill or cripple your game, but there's no real point in risking it.

In theory, you can run one without annoying people by making it a largely incidental secondary or background character. Just think of it as an NPC, and it will make your life more pleasant.

[Dragonfire]

Well thing with DMPC's is to make them not be the foucos of the story and not do the players jobs for them. As long as they are in a supporting role they can add alot of flavor to a game. On the other hand if the DMPC walks into a room and is able to murder everyone in there without breaking a sweat your doing it wrong. Keep in mind all this stuff is from personal opinons though.

My group has a few ones that we like alot though.

[Silus]

Well thing with DMPC's is to make them not be the foucos of the story and not do the players jobs for them. As long as they are in a supporting role they can add alot of flavor to a game. On the other hand if the DMPC walks into a room and is able to murder everyone in there without breaking a sweat your doing it wrong. Keep in mind all this stuff is from personal opinons though.

My group has a few ones that we like alot though.

I was going to, at most, have the DMPC a military commander (the PCs will be accompanies by a contingent of lvl 1 NPC riflemen for the expedition they're going on). At most, he'd be there to help defend the camp and would only tag long if the PCs asked him to.

Though I suppose that wouldn't really count as a DMPC though, would it?

[Moofaa]

You will get mixed responses to this I am sure.

I use DMPC's frequently, because I often only have one player in a lot of my games. Since that's a bit of an un-usual situation it works in it's own way. Usually my friend makes whatever character he wants, and I make 1-2 DMPC's to support his class choices (like if he's a fighter, I make a cleric and a wizard or rogue).

Mostly, they just follow along, letting him make the larger decisions and only on occasion offering insight or guidance to help keep the plot moving along (which is the greatest advantage of a DMPC, and possibly one of it's greatest weaknesses).

Some general guidelines for a successful DMPC;

1. Never upstage the players. The DMPC should not have some insane backstory or other "fluff" characteristics that take the stage away from the PC's. Most of my DMPC's have simple backgrounds.

2. Similar to number 1, the DMPC should never have any "crunch" advantages over players. This means no crazy stats, wealth, magical gear, or insane powers that they shouldn't have.

3. Be mindful of the meta-game. Even if you follow rules #1 & 2 and make a simple, useful character that fills a needed role in the party it's tempting to use your DM knowledge to give that DMPC information that, as a character, it really shouldn't have. It's important to separate the fact that YOU know the BBEG is actually the old wizard that hired the party for the mission, but the CHARACTER wouldn't know that.

I would suggest, in a normal party (with say, 4+ REAL players), any DMPC's be limited in joining with the party for only part of the adventure, in fact this can lead to good role-play and returns of favorite DMPC's later as the players continue the campaign and enriches the world you are building.

So basically if you are making a overpowered, overgeared, min/maxed character with special powers that always seems to know when to stand behind the players because there is trouble around the corner...you're doing it wrong.

[flumphy]

There are valid reasons to add a DMPC to a campaign, such as an otherwise small or unbalanced party. Simply wanting to play a PC is not a good reason, and, because even the best GM will be tempted to show favoritism to their own character, it is probably the worst possible reason to use a DMPC.

Content yourself with a recurring gunslinger villain, or try to find a game you can play in.

[Shpadoinkle]

DMPCs are by definition impossible to do right because you can't DM and be a player at the same time. If you want to do that you might as well be playing with yourself.

Now, if you want a pet NPC who travels with and helps out the party, that's fine, as long as he's not a glory hog or a major plot element. Support classes are fantastic for this (or other classes working in a support role, like a wizard who mostly uses his spells to buff the PCs and as self defense. Disabling enemies is iffy though.)

[Morithias]

the best DMPC that I probably ever made was a warforged called "Arma". It was in effect a living sidequest, and the PC's upgrade her with new parts made with a special device. This way the player's controlled what was basically my character's power level.

Needless to say, they upgraded her to insane levels and had her one shot the big bad. But the fact that THEY caused her to be that strong, made her seem more like a +6 longsword than a mary sue.

[Silus]

There are valid reasons to add a DMPC to a campaign, such as an otherwise small or unbalanced party. Simply wanting to play a PC is not a good reason, and, because even the best GM will be tempted to show favoritism to their own character, it is probably the worst possible reason to use a DMPC.

Content yourself with a recurring gunslinger villain, or try to find a game you can play in.

*Agreeing nod* I suppose I'll wait until the players actually make their characters proper before seeing if they need a space filler...

So far we have a sniper Ranger/Fighter, a Summoner, and someone that is leaning towards Inquisitor. Not sure about the other two player though.

Now, if you want a pet NPC who travels with and helps out the party, that's fine, as long as he's not a glory hog or a major plot element. Support classes are fantastic for this (or other classes working in a support role, like a wizard who mostly uses his spells to buff the PCs and as self defense. Disabling enemies is iffy though.)

Well I'm not planning having him take on the enemies all by himself with his spear and magic helmet or anything A little fire support here, at most be that "big brother" type character that helps the PCs until they're strong enough to take out the bigger things themselves (like the CR 12 grab-happy, 8 legged cat thing I'm statting out). Also, sometime people won't be able to make it and I don't want to have to cancel a game because one or two people (out of 5) can't make it...

I'm thinking this is leaning more towards "favored NPC" than DMPC....

[Acanous]

if under lv 5, the DMPC is 1 level lower than the party. If over lv 5, he is 2 levels lower than the party. (Like a Cohort)
Avoid multiclassing. a lv 15 DMPC should have, at most, 3 classes.(2 base and a prestige, in situations where you require abilities from 2 base classes to enter the prestige) 2 is better if you can pull it off. 1 is prefferential, but we all know base classes mostly suck, so not much to be done about that :p

The DMPC should take half a share of treasure, as per a cohort. A DMPC should never be used in sessions with more than 4 players- it's best used as a stopgap measure for parties who are short a player or two. In such situations, you should advise your players to take leadership and then they can play the character, or pick up a new one, should they so choose. Having a player pick up the DMPC makes plot sense and is less work. Don't force them to do it, though. (Most players will jump at being allowed Leadership, but there's a few out there who don't want to pay a "Feat tax" because the party is undermanned)

So there's the mechanics of running a DMPC without having the party roll their eyes. Story wise, try to keep things about the DMPC average for the area/class/race, and internally consistant. He's not a special snowflake, he's more like a specially skilled hireling.

If you want to indulge in creating a thought-out backstory for your DMPC, ensure that the rest of your world has similarly well written backstory. Otherwise the plot will begin a death spiral, circling around the DMPC. You will, as the player of this PC, be uniquely blind to this effect. Remember to spend some time in game playing off of things in your players' backstories, too. They'll feel less like "The Rest" in Gilligan's Island if their bios get more headline time than the DMPC.

[awa]

Ive had good luck with dm pcs and regularly use them.
things that have worked well for me include
1) having them be weaker then the party.
2) never trying to do the same thing as one of the players
3) having the pcs have authority over them
4) support abilities like item creation, or healing

finally always remember the story is about the pcs not the dmpc

[Gavinfoxx]

Make them Squires or Apprentices or Assistants to the Heroes, which don't actually participate in the fights, and are just helpers and stuff. Problem solved.

[Silus]

Ive had good luck with dm pcs and regularly use them.
things that have worked well for me include
1) having them be weaker then the party.
2) never trying to do the same thing as one of the players
3) having the pcs have authority over them
4) support abilities like item creation, or healing

finally always remember the story is about the pcs not the dmpc

Well, they do have the Archeologist archetype for Bards in the Ultimate Combat book, maybe if I multiclassed that with a Wizard and just kept them back for magic item making, artifact/magic item identification, and other scholar/bookworm type stuff....

Last character I had that was even remotely DMPC'ish was a Sphinx office lady/bureaucrat that gave the PCs their missions. They thought she was....er...a not nice person. Though that may have been the personality I gave her...

[claricorp]

Don't have them stay with the party for any extended period of time.

[Squeejee]

A system for DMPCs I've been using lately is:

1 DMPCs don't take actions on their own unless directed by a PC, but
2 PCs do not have access to DMPC character sheets, and
3 DMPCs have their own lives and aren't always available to help the PCs.

It works out pretty well: my party's in the Desert of Desolation and have a small caravan of DMPCs following them - all by choice, as in I didn't force any of them on my players, they were recruited similar to using the "talk" option in Fire Emblem - but they mostly guard the camels while the PCs get to the real adventuring. Occaisionally Yun the Mystic Theurge is called up for some casting or Habib the Nightsong Enforcer is brought in as a flank attacker, but as long as it's the PCs doing the main thrust of the adventuring it doesn't negatively effect the game.

It can also be built up to an epic "Dragon Age II"-style confrontation where some of your old adventuring buddies fight against you while others stand with you.

[Qing Guang]

Well I actually grew up in a system (Warlock, a 1.0 variant that's been running at Caltech since the seventies) where DMPCs were the norm. I think originally they were implemented to prevent DM sadism - if the DM's got characters, too, she's invested in the party, and she's therefore much less inclined to pull "rocks fall, everyone dies" stunts.

Admittedly, it was a lower-roleplay setting than most (everybody had 3 characters and ran 2 at a time, and there was rarely an overarching plot), but it always worked out all right. I never heard of any instances of cheating on the part of the DM or of the DM upstaging the players.

Of course, there are some basic, unspoken rules to make this work:
1) Don't cheat. (Duh.) I'm not sure why everybody thinks this is so difficult. In fact, I was really shocked going to a new system (PF, specifically) at the culture of distrust going on. DM screens, no DM characters, DM having to keep trid and calculate experience... it was really weird, making the DM into this mystical god entity. Honestly, I think a good DM ought to have enough self-control to be able to run a character without giving it little perks.
2) Don't be the unique character. Don't be the paladin. Don't be the weird race or class. Don't be the gimmick character. You don't have to relegate yourself to a support role, but it helps. (My current DM for our branch of Warlock - we had to split off due to scheduling and location issues - prefers to run Staff Chick archetypes in general. The most "out there" she ever got was a Cavalier, and that character was remarkably mild-mannered, especially compared the the Cavalier from the previous universe).
3) Don't be the star of the story. Backstories are fine; being the focal point of the plot is not. (One of the special things we do in our branch is that every so often we will go on a longer, more epic quest that eventually results in one of the players getting a special item tailored to one of their characters. Everybody gets a turn being the focus of one of these quests - except the DM.) Think of the DM's PC as a supporting actor - part of the main ensemble, but they're never going to get their own episode.
4) Don't be the hero of every fight. Pull your weight, but let the other players have the really memorable moments (unless of course things have gone horribly wrong and everybody has to go all-in).
5) Don't use your character to make suggestions. Even if everyone else is missing the completely obvious (to you) solution, you need to let them figure it out, or they'll feel cheap about getting the answer.

If you follow those you should be able to make it work. It's worked for us for years (maybe decades - I dunno how long it's been part of the system, but definitely as long as I've been watching/playing).

[SamBurke]

It really depends. I have two players who have basically accepted that they're minor characters in an over-story, and like it a lot. MOST PEOPLE DON'T, though. Just noting these particular two.

[Gavinfoxx]

5) Don't use your character to make suggestions. Even if everyone else is missing the completely obvious (to you) solution, you need to let them figure it out, or they'll feel cheap about getting the answer.

I would say this with a caveat. Mention, DM to players, that these characters will generally NOT make suggestions or solve things. However, by unanimous vote of the players, the characters can come up with a nudging idea if need be.

[Qing Guang]

I would say this with a caveat. Mention, DM to players, that these characters will generally NOT make suggestions or solve things. However, by unanimous vote of the players, the characters can come up with a nudging idea if need be.

That's a good point. The main thing is letting the players - not your own feelings of "augh how are they not getting this yet" - decide when your DMPC "gets an idea."

[SowZ]

A DMPC is like a combination of playing chess against yourself and making a second account on a web forum to agree with yourself in a debate. The only time I am cool with it is when everyone shifts DMs and even then the DMPC should be downplayed as much as possible. Otherwise, it should just be an NPC.

[NikitaDarkstar]

First of all have you tried just asking your players if they'd be ok with you running a PC? If they are, go for it.

But please keep in mind that it should be the same power level as the other PC's at the very most and not upstage them. And I'd suggest using some sort of chart or knowledge rolls for your character IC when they need to know/guess at something, fail the roll and the character doesn't know, end of story. (At least use them as a guide) Hopefully it can help you keep your IC and OOC knowledge separate.

And also see if there is a need for one, if not you'll just annoy and for trying out a class? Well the point of trying a class is to see what it can and can't do, meaning you will be doing some optimization and min-maxing, which a DM shouldn't be doing if he runs a DMPC.

[Serpentine]

Ho boy, here we go...

So I've been toying with the idea of adding a DMPC to the campaign I'm going to run (Reeeeeeally wanna try out the new Gunslinger class for Pathfinder), but I hear a lot of people not speak kindly of DMPCs. Should I scrap the idea or is there a way to run one without it being crap or annoying or just made of fail?

Well, for starters, I'd be wary of using a class I'm not familiar with for a DMPC. Make sure you know all of its abilities and mechanics well in advance, so you don't have to keep wasting time looking through the rules on your turn in combat.

I think, most of the time, a "follower" personality type would be preferable. The sort who will offer their thoughts if requested, but otherwise go with the group. Being the "face" of the party is probably a particularly bad idea.

Give your character a minimum of spotlight - not none, but less than others, and never when someone else wants it.

Make sure you can completely divide the DMPC's IC knowledge from your own DM's OOC knowledge - and also, make sure your players know you're doing that. Stress that any information or ideas coming from the DMPC, is coming from the DMPC, not from you. Use it as a mouthpiece or cattleprod only sparingly, when the group's really stuck or wandering.

Don't grant your DMPC anything you wouldn't allow a player. If anything, be harsher on what it's allowed. Aim to be at least a bit less optimised than the rest of the party, and a step or two behind experience-wise.

I'd say "don't step on any toes", but my own DMPC was kept in the game at my players' request partly because they like the interactions between her and a similar PC... I guess, just talk to your players about what role they'd like the DMPC to take in the group.

That's probably the most important thing. Communicate with your players. Be aware of their preferences and any complaints, and be willing to be flexible.

[GAThraawn]

^ Basically what Serpentine said. She's been through a lot of these threads that pop up over time. The moral is pretty much always the same: People who hate DMPC's hate them because they've had experiences with them in which the DM either overshadowed the rest of the party, played favourites, used them to lead the party around by the nose, or forced the players into the back seat of their own one-man show.

Those of us who have had positive experiences with DMPC's have mostly either made the characters mostly unassuming background characters, or given them personalities and roles that the players have enjoyed and latched onto. As I've said before, I never set out to make DMPC's, but my players keep insisting on finding the NPC's they enjoy the most and recruiting them, so not everyone hates DMPC's, you just have to make sure that you make them someone your players like.

[zanetheinsane]

As everyone else suggested, never play a DMPC because you want to play a character. But if you must play a DMPC and for some reason you do want to upstage the players or show off how badass he is, I suggest two story arcs:

Have the DMPC help the players out in a short inconsequential battle. Afterward the DMPC suggests splitting up to focus on two different objectives (have the players decide which one the party will do). Let the players have the option of not splitting up and this will let you gauge your player's reactions and if they want this particular character to follow them.

And playing devil's advocate here, sometimes there may be a storyline call for the whole "super amazing upstaging DMPC". If you think it is an unavoidable route take these suggestions:

Have the DMPC get his moment of glory but then suddenly either A) Die, and it's up to the players to avenge him or carry on the mission (this is a good way to drop some sort of key piece of equipment, quest item, or just a nice bonus reward on your players, letting them loot the body always makes everyone happy). B) Unable to finish the job, defeat all of the enemies, etc. The players must then finish off the enemies, objective, mission, etc, essentially bailing him out of this situation and showing that he's clearly in over his head.

This accomplishes two things. Shows off how badass your DMPC is (which I agree is a horrible concept, but some DMs still insist on this no matter what) but in the end shows that your DMPC clearly wasn't badass enough and the only people more badass than him are the party.

If you go this route, make sure that whatever your DMPC plans to do happens very fast. His actions should take up no more than 5-10 minutes of a session tops. Remember, your players are there to play, not watch you play.

[Serpentine]

As everyone else suggested, never play a DMPC because you want to play a character.

I didn't suggest that. In fact, I think it's a valid reason to play a DMPC, as long as your players don't mind.

But if you must play a DMPC and for some reason you do want to upstage the players or show off how badass he is, I suggest two story arcs:
...
Shows off how badass your DMPC is (which I agree is a horrible concept, but some DMs still insist on this no matter what)

This, on the other hand, is something no one else here has said is even remotely desirable.

[Gnaeus]

I don't think DMPCs are ever a good idea. They can help to solve certain problems, but I have never seen a problem that a DMPC can solve that can't be solved better by other methods.

The super-powerful mary sue railroad device is obviously awful and should not be used.

Normal world: They invite the DM to cheat and/or use out of game knowledge. They can force the DM to take sides in conflicts between players. Even if the DM is NOT playing favorites, taking sides, or metagaming, there can be the perception that he is by the players, which is just as damaging. They can lead to situations where the players have been incapacitated by damage or effects and the DM is running combats against himself. They can take spotlight from players. Many/most players are reluctant to stand up to the DM and say that they don't want his DMPC in play, so getting good feedback can be problematic. They are a minefield of potential problems waiting to erupt.

Perfect world best case: They slow combat and take time from the DM that he should be using elsewhere.

For a 1-2 man party, consider gestalt. Consider free leadership feats.
For a larger party, you don't need one. If you think healing is lacking, drop some wands/scrolls/healing belts. Or allow a PC to take Leadership with restrictions on his cohort.

[Gamgee]

There are valid reasons to add a DMPC to a campaign, such as an otherwise small or unbalanced party. Simply wanting to play a PC is not a good reason, and, because even the best GM will be tempted to show favoritism to their own character, it is probably the worst possible reason to use a DMPC.

Content yourself with a recurring gunslinger villain, or try to find a game you can play in.

I'm biased against this to the detriment where my character can be a cardboard cut out who is just a background support guy on the level of a mook.

I'm sure my players would love to have an NPC around doing more, but I feel they're here to be the heroes. So best let them do all the hero work.

[Serpentine]

The super-powerful mary sue railroad device is obviously awful and should not be used.

Certainly never done that.

Normal world: They invite the DM to cheat and/or use out of game knowledge.

Not an issue.

They can force the DM to take sides in conflicts between players.

Never happened, unlikely to.

Even if the DM is NOT playing favorites, taking sides, or metagaming, there can be the perception that he is by the players, which is just as damaging.

Does not appear to be present.

They can lead to situations where the players have been incapacitated by damage or effects and the DM is running combats against himself.

My DMPC is usually the first one knocked out.

They can take spotlight from players.

Technically, it's impossible to not do this. But it isn't necessarily a problem, especially if it's kept low and the players enjoy it anyway.

Many/most players are reluctant to stand up to the DM and say that they don't want his DMPC in play, so getting good feedback can be problematic.

The group went out of its way to keep my DMPC in the game. I think that's pretty good feedback.

They are a minefield of potential problems waiting to erupt.

True, but that goes for everything.

Perfect world best case: They slow combat and take time from the DM that he should be using elsewhere.

Concerns I've had, but my players are aware of this and don't care. I'm thinking of always having her deal average damage or something, to keep my dice-rolling to a minimum.

[Gnaeus]

Not an issue.

Really? You don't know where the traps in your dungeon are? You don't know the vulnerabilities or immunities of the monsters you are running? How odd.

True, but that goes for everything.

No, the act of NOT playing in the same game that you are running is not a potential minefield of problems.

...Stuff that Serpent says never happened in her group

That is nice. I have seen campaigns where responsible DMs ran responsible DMPCs for months or years before it blew up. It could happen tomorrow. My argument isn't that there are no benefits that can be derived from them. It is that I know of no case where those benefits could not be acquired by a less disruptive method.