Being Robin: LotharBot's Guide to DMPCs

[LotharBot]

Being Robin: LotharBot's Guide to DMPCs

"Making the Most Average of What you Have (when what you have is metagame knowledge and godlike power)"

The Very Basics of DMPCs

So, you're the dungeon master, and due to the choices your players made or the fact that they're all new to the game or whatever other reason, you want to play a character along with them. (If you're just a player but you're sick of being Batman, or playing with a younger group you don't want to overshadow, there's useful advice here for you too. But the primary focus of this article is on DMPC's.)

First off: if you're thinking of playing a DMPC, rule zero is DON'T DO IT! Seriously. Most of the time it's going to end in disaster. The rest of this guide is meant for those who are confident enough, brave enough, stupid enough, or just plain good enough to ignore rule zero.

What not to play

One of the major pitfalls of being the DM and controlling a PC is that you can end up playing a game against yourself while everyone else watches. If you're the party face, you end up rolling diplomacy checks against yourself, knowing the exact right thing to say and hoping your red die rolls higher than your blue die. If you're the party scout / trap disabler / skill monkey, you end up rolling the dice a few times and telling the rest of the group "problem solved", and they have no idea what happened. This is really, really boring for everyone else at the table, and it's probably pretty boring for you, too. Point is, don't play the party face or primary scout/skillmonkey. If your party doesn't have someone to fill in those roles, tweak the rules rather than filling the gap with your own player. Let them role-play diplomatic situations instead of making diplomacy checks. Give the fighter extra skill points and listen/spot as class skills to act as a scout. Give everybody a few extra skill points and class skills to fill in the gaps. Make traps that are easy to notice and then require role-playing, rather than a DC 29 disable device check, to get past. Whatever you do, don't create a lot of situations where only your DMPC can save the party.

Even worse than a DM playing a game with himself while everyone else watches is a DM dominating a game with himself while everyone else watches. Be Robin, not Batman. If you're always pulling the right spell out of your pack to save the day, even if you didn't metagame at all (because a good Batman wizard doesn't need to metagame), everybody else is going to feel like an extra in your story about yourself. Again, that's boring.

With that in mind, the only thing worse than a DM dominating a game with himself is a DMPC that just makes things harder. Don't be Batman, but don't be a liability either. A ridiculously impulsive "DM's excuse to railroad you" character -- one who dives into every open portal, rushes into every situation with sword drawn, and steals everything that isn't nailed down -- is going to make things harder on your players, and annoy them all to heck. So is a fragile character the cleric has to keep healing, a halfling commoner wearing full plate who can't keep up, or a character with ability scores 11, 10, 9, 8, 5, and 3.

Favoritism and Metagaming: two problems that can become assets

I often hear complaints about DM's favoring their own PCs or NPCs to the detriment of the party or game consistancy. If the DM is running a sorcerer, chances are pretty good the party will find a cloak of charisma or a tome of leadership and influence a bit sooner than should be expected. And of course the enemies, after reducing the DMPC to 3 HP, will decide to change targets. If you run a DMPC you must be mature enough to resist this... and if you can, take it a step further. Yeah, you like your character, but there's a whole game world you derive satisfaction from, so why not be generous with your share of the loot? Instead of hooking your own character up because you really want shiny loot, take joy in the fact that you're the shiny-loot giver. Yeah, you like your character, but if they get killed you already have several more NPC's and you can always create a plot hook to get them raised, so let your PC get destroyed once in a while. Don't go too far in making your DMPC the main target of the enemies, but don't pull your punches just because he's your character. It's not like you need to beg the DM to find a cleric to cast raise dead ;)

Another common complaint is about metagaming. You know the solution to the puzzle, the answer to the riddle, the villain behind the kidnappings, and so on. Some DMs will have their PCs magically provide this knowledge to the party, cheating their players out of the chance to solve it themselves. But you can also use a DMPC to provide subtle hints or even red herrings. Give the party a nudge in the right direction, or the occasional nudge in the wrong direction. As the DM, you also know what kinds of bad guys are coming up in the next dungeon... and you can use that to your advantage, or to your disadvantage. In my current campaign, I happen to know we just finished a long section of undead and our next few sessions will be mostly against humans and elves with class levels. I also just picked up a new favored enemy. I picked undead because they'd been such a problem for us -- even though it'll end up being a suboptimal choice. I know enough to know exactly how suboptimal my choice was, so I can carefully balance my power level and specialization to be useful but not overwhelming.

The Little Things Matter

So, if you're not the party face, you're not the primary scout, you're not Batman, and you're not a super-optimal uber build, what good are you? That's the dilemma that faces many DMPC's.

I'm a fan of pro sports. You hear a lot about all-star players -- the guy who leads the league in scoring, the guy who gets the most sacks, the goalie who keeps his team in every game. But you also hear about "hustle players", "chemistry guys", "veteran locker-room presences". These are the guys who show up and do the little things -- they tip a ball that leads to a big play for your team, or they throw a nice block or set a nice screen to put your star in position to shine, or they give the young players instructions on how to be more effective.

D&D has a nice mechanic for doing the little things: the "aid another" action. You might not be picking the lock, but with a few ranks, you can make it easier for the rogue by passing him the right tool at the right time. You might not be able to deal d12+35 damage with a greataxe, but you can flank and distract your opponent (aid another: attack roll vs AC 10) to give the barbarian another +4 to hit. You might not be able to cast Cure Serious Wounds, but if you can use a wand or scroll of Cure Light Wounds, the party healer can save her higher-level spells.

You can also use your role as both DM and PC to teach players about things they might not know. Throw a thunderstone or tanglefoot bag. Use a sunrod to light an area. Tumble into flanking position. Talk about how much you want to buy a silver weapon because you really hate vampires or devils. This stuff is all old news to veteran players, but a lot of newer players would never think to get a weapon made of special material or use certain alchemical or minor magical items.

Keeping the Spotlight Moving

One of the biggest complaints DMs have about DMPCs is they're a lot of work. You're already in charge of the game world, so it can be a lot of trouble keeping track of a PC and having to decide your own actions as well as monster actions every round. And when you take too long deciding your actions, you're essentially playing against yourself while everyone else at the table sits and watches. This puts the spotlight back on you, which is not where you want it.

Here are a few helpful suggestions to make your DMPC easy to run:
- avoid taking complicated feats that require a lot of decision making. Power Attack, Dodge, Spring Attack, and Combat Expertise are useful, but you have to think about them a lot during combat to decide exactly how to use them. They work fine if you're a normal player, but if you're the DM you don't have time to think about them in combat. Feats like Weapon Focus, Skill Focus, and Far Shot have a fixed benefit, so try to focus on those.
- have a simple combat philosophy, like "stab the nearest bad guy" or "always try to flank" or "buff the tanks", so when it comes time to decide what to do in combat you can do it quickly.
- have a simple, clean, easy-to-read character sheet. Make sure all of your key abilities and the associated numbers are clearly spelled out so you don't have to flip pages and make calculations and dig through three splatbooks to figure out your touch AC, attack modifier, or the effect of a spell you're about to cast is.
- If you're a caster, make sure you know which spells require material components and such, and try to focus on spells with straightforward effects like "5d6 cold damage" or "save or sleep", rather than complicated "you get +3 AC, while he has to save against blindness, and there's a DC10 balance check, and then next round everyone within 15' takes 2d6 nonlethal damage with a reflex save for half" type spells.
- preplan your actions when you set up an encounter, based on what you've planned for the baddies to do. Know that if baddie X gets off spell Y, you'll try to flank him and disrupt his next spell, and if he doesn't you'll go after baddie Z instead. I know this sounds like metagaming, but it's not really. You're not cheating to put yourself in a better position, you're just pre-deciding what you'll do once you're in the position you expect to be in.

Some DMPC Build Ideas

- buff / healing cleric. Stand back, stay out of trouble, and make everyone else more effective. You might occasionally pull out a spell that breaks an encounter, but for the most part, you just help everyone else kick butt.
- buff / utility sorcerer. Same thing, but you're a bit more fragile, so be careful to stay out of melee. Make sure someone else handles diplomacy, though.
- skillmonkey ranger/rogue or bard/rogue. Provide a lot of flanking, a lot of +2 bonuses from aid another, a little bit of combat damage, and light spellcasting support.
- mystic theurge. Underpowered, but you've always got a ton of utility spells. You're like the party's swiss army knife.

How It's Worked For Me So Far

I'm currently running a DMPC in a campaign with 2 other experienced players and 3 newbies. My wife was very strongly against the idea at first. It took 2 sessions to win her over. We just completed session #27, and my DMPC is still incredibly popular with the entire party.

My character concept was simple and straightforward: a high-int halfling ranger who takes after others in the party and really hates goblins (and demons and undead, now.) He's taken a few levels of rogue and a level of barbarian. Lots of ranks in tumble, hide, move silently, spot, and search, and a few in open lock, disable device, and a smattering of others. With all the +2 bonuses he gives from flanking and aid another, the party nicknamed him the "masterwork halfling". As a ranger, he also has enough HP and good enough saves that he doesn't generally require a lot of attention, and he can use Cure wands, which lets the cleric focus bigger things. He deals a ton less damage than the greataxe-wielding barbarian, and doesn't get to drop the dice-bomb like the sneak-attacking rogue, but he does enough in combat that he's worth having around. He gets a share of the loot, but often gives a bit of gold to anyone who's just short of getting an item they want, and pays for the healing items he carries around.

I wouldn't say it's been 100% successful in every way possible, but the experience has been far more positive than negative. IMO, a mature DM who follows this advice will do very well running a DMPC.

[Krellen]

Good article. Hilarious title.

[illathid]

If you have to, I personally like the bard for a DMPC, ss long they they aren't the face. They are good buffers, and you never have to worry about overshadowing any of the PCs, mainly because your a bard.

[Toliudar]

This is a great idea for an article.

I will add that personalities for DMPC's are difficult to sustain. Since my PnP group almost always plays divine casters, blasters and tanks, I've had a series of support arcanists, trapsmith rogues and similar types, to fill the gaps. I say "a series of", because I'll often use these characters as canaries in the mineshaft. Instead of protecting them from harm, they're MORE likely to put themselves in harm's way for the others, endearing themselves to PC's. When a DMPC dies, it's a good warning to the group that this encounter may be too hard.

Of these, the ones that worked best followed this simple personality formula so that their character stood out from DM-talking-as-DM, or any of the myriad other NPC's:
1. One clear virtue. Modest. Charming. Wisecracking. Brave. Something specific.
2. One clear shortcoming: Body odor that could peel paint. Hit on anything in a skirt. Something that doesn't put the PC's at serious risk.
3. A voice. Raised tone. Slight accent. A stammer. Anything that allows the DMPC to join into a discussion quickly without the PC's ever thinking that it's the DM.

[Kel_Arath]

ooh! dont ever have a pally DMPC. then the rogue gets angry...

[Starsinger]

I recently ran a DMPC who was basically a Sorcerer with the cleric spell list (since the party druid didn't like healing, and there was no cleric.) She also served as a source of information for the PCs who were enlisted by a country on another continent for help. So she filled them in on things like Knowledge Local, but never too much, and only when they asked. At the time I was worried about her because DMPCs have a negative stigma attatched to them, but after reading this, I feel better about her.

[Bag_of_Holding]

Now this is a good guide!

[JaronK]

I like using nameless DMPCs who are conscious of the fact that they're second rate. Sometimes they wear red shirts. They're very existencial characters.

JaronK

[Rockphed]

I recently ran a DMPC who was basically a Sorcerer with the cleric spell list (since the party druid didn't like healing, and there was no cleric.)

That sounds vaguely like a Favored Soul. A favored soul has a few extra abilities that might never come up, but I don't have Complete Divine, so I am not sure what they are.

By the way, Nice Article. It made me feel better about some developements in a recent PnP game.

[Starsinger]

It's sorta like a favored soul, but favored souls have all 3 saves as good and higher HD

[ClericofPhwarrr]

I'm bookmarking this thread for future use. Nice job!

[KIDS]

Very good guide both for those who play DMPCS and those who play along DMPCS - thanks for writing this!
Salute

[Ethdred]

Excellent article as far as it went, but missed out the really important question - why aren't you just using NPCs? If the party is short of healing, have a temple back in town that will patch them up when they crawl back and will sell potions etc - they just have to watch their health to make sure they get back OK (and you have to resist the temptation to hit them with a wandering monster on the way back). If the party doesn't have a trapfinder, then have a mercenary thief (or guild) that's willing to come with them on specific jobs - so if they find the door they absolutely have to open, then they can go back, get the locksmith, and then continue. But why are you putting doors like that in your campaign anyway? I can't think of any situation that could arise for an unbalanced party that absolutely has to have a DMPC there all the time.

Sorry, had to have a rant about that....

[Tormsskull]

Nit Pick:

You might not be able to deal d12+35 damage with a greataxe, but you can flank and distract your opponent (aid another: attack roll vs AC 10) to give the barbarian another +4 to hit.

IIRC, in order to "Aid Another" you must be next to the person you are aiding. And in order to "Flank" you must be on one side of the opponent with an ally on the direct opposite side. Therefore, I can't think of anyway you could both provide a flank to a friend for a target and also aid that same friend.

Unless of course there are non-core feats/spells that alter this, or if I am simply mistaken. But worth looking into.

Other than that, interesting guide. I have always though the term DMPC was odd, but I defend the practice of using one (which I just call an NPC). The 'NPC that travels with the party and is considered a full member of the group by the group's choice' is just another type of NPC to me.

[Krellen]

IIRC, in order to "Aid Another" you must be next to the person you are aiding. And in order to "Flank" you must be on one side of the opponent with an ally on the direct opposite side.

You are, sadly, mistaken, as seen here:

If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action.

You simply have to be threatening an opponent that is threatening your ally. You can flank and aid: "Hey pig-face! Over here!"

[LotharBot]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Glad to see this is of some use.

You simply have to be threatening an opponent that is threatening your ally. You can flank and aid: "Hey pig-face! Over here!"

I don't think my players have actually learned the term "aid another". They just say "I'm going to stand over here and go 'booga booga boo!' and wave my sword around at him."

missed out the really important question - why aren't you just using NPCs?
[snip: discussion of how certain tasks can be accomplished by a non-party member]

You give a good argument as to why you shouldn't necessarily use a DMPC just to fill out missing party roles. I gave a similar argument in my "what not to play" section -- you don't need a DMPC just to fill in a missing role; you can always tweak the rules or supply different treasure or just use NPC's. If you're in a campaign that involves a lot of travel away from civilization, "ok, guys, ride 2 days back toward the city to get some healing and find a locksmith" just doesn't cut it, though, so having a DMPC as a persistant presence can be helpful.

There are a lot of other reasons to use one, aside from merely filling in a missing role:
- a way to introduce game mechanics and plot hooks and magic item ideas ("I'm gonna go buy some celestial armor!" or "I hate goblins so much I got a goblin bane sword!" or "oh no, I've been kidnapped!")
- a way to subtly bend the game world to the PCs benefit without using DM fiat ("you're 120 gp short? Garlen has a bit of extra... here you go" is a lot better than "the shop has a 120 gp discount on that exact item!")
- a way to avoid becoming too distant from the players. Being the DM/referee/enemy/godlike entity tends to create a disconnect, but running some part of the group draws you back in. I find this improves the chemistry around the table (though playing a DMPC the wrong way will tend to do the opposite, so be careful!)
- helps keep track of the party's overall power level. Since I built my DMPC and I keep his sheet maintained and up to date, I pretty quickly recognize if overall WBL is off. And since I know how the other characters compare to him, I can easily look at an encounter and say "this will be too hard, none of us can hit that AC reliably" or "this will be too easy, I could take it on my own."
- helps keep a party within the expectations for a pregen module. Maybe it's built for 5 players, and you have 3. Adding a player of your own is much easier than trying to rebalance the entire module.
- Toliudar's DMPCs give a way for the players, and more importantly the DM, to recognize when an encounter is too hard before the players start to take heavy losses.

Maybe I should add this to the original article.

[Matthew]

A good subject for an article, this, and interesting to boot. I agree that you should incorporate additional material as you come across it, just use a [Revised] or [Updated] Marker above the text.

Two things to consider:

1) Give the Player Characters the option. Don't force a (DM)NPC Adventurer onto the Player Characters. Create several and create a roleplaying environment where they can accept or reject the company of an NPC Adventurer. Make Treasure Distribution Rules part of the negotiation, so the PCs and NPC(s) are clear on the arrangement from the outset.

2) NPC Adventurers do not need to be under DM control. Consider allowing the Group or a single Player the option of running the (DM)NPC Adventurer during combat or 'in the dungeon'. Always retain DM veto and make sure the Players are acquainted with the NPCs personality. I have found that, especially during a long campaign, Players often enjoy the chance to roleplay other Characters than their own. Sometimes it is something of a necessity, as the group splits up to do various tasks, meaning one or more Player Characters are absent from an adventure, but the Player still has someone to play. Also, (DM)NPCs mean that Guest Players have a ready made Character to step into the shoes of.

[karmuno]

This was a cool article, and I'll keep a lot of this stuff in mind, as I tend to DM groups with small amounts of players (I actually have one campaign that's just 1 other guy, he plays two people and I roleplay two. In combat he controls all of them. Ironically, a half-orc barbarian is the face of the party, but it works and I don't really mind).

This also got me thinking that this might be a good way to introduce a recurring villain. For example, a DMPC paladin could become more and more depondent over time, until he eventually leaves the party (or the party kicks him out). Later, he comes back as a blackguard, probably shortly after the PCs are thinking "I wonder what happened to Paladin X?"

Hey, Paladin X would be a good band name.

[Ethdred]

You give a good argument as to why you shouldn't necessarily use a DMPC just to fill out missing party roles. I gave a similar argument in my "what not to play" section -- you don't need a DMPC just to fill in a missing role; you can always tweak the rules or supply different treasure or just use NPC's. If you're in a campaign that involves a lot of travel away from civilization, "ok, guys, ride 2 days back toward the city to get some healing and find a locksmith" just doesn't cut it, though, so having a DMPC as a persistant presence can be helpful.

And why are you, as DM and therefore in absolute control of everything in the world, putting them in a position where they need skills which are not reasonably available to them? If your campaign involves them being an impractible distance from 'aid' then don't put them in a position where they need that aid. I'm in a campaign at the moment where the party has no thief-type, and guess what - the DM has not put any major traps in our way. But he has still managed to build a challenging campaign around the things we can do.

There are a lot of other reasons to use one, aside from merely filling in a missing role:
- a way to introduce game mechanics and plot hooks and magic item ideas ("I'm gonna go buy some celestial armor!" or "I hate goblins so much I got a goblin bane sword!" or "oh no, I've been kidnapped!")

[Scrubbed]

- a way to subtly bend the game world to the PCs benefit without using DM fiat ("you're 120 gp short? Garlen has a bit of extra... here you go" is a lot better than "the shop has a 120 gp discount on that exact item!")

See above - what's wrong with giving them a side quest that earns them that extra 120GP (and maybe gains them an extra friend in town, exposes them to a bit more of the workings of the town politics, etc etc). 'Garlen has a bit extra' may be better than 'the shop has a discount' but it's not as good as 'well, if you can get me some smooglesporeweed than I could cut you a deal'

- a way to avoid becoming too distant from the players. Being the DM/referee/enemy/godlike entity tends to create a disconnect, but running some part of the group draws you back in. I find this improves the chemistry around the table (though playing a DMPC the wrong way will tend to do the opposite, so be careful!)

Gah, gah, gah.........

This is so wrong I don't even know where to start.

- helps keep track of the party's overall power level. Since I built my DMPC and I keep his sheet maintained and up to date, I pretty quickly recognize if overall WBL is off. And since I know how the other characters compare to him, I can easily look at an encounter and say "this will be too hard, none of us can hit that AC reliably" or "this will be too easy, I could take it on my own."

[Scrubbed]

- helps keep a party within the expectations for a pregen module. Maybe it's built for 5 players, and you have 3. Adding a player of your own is much easier than trying to rebalance the entire module.

That's a matter of personal preference, but I've never seen a module that couldn't be tackled by a lower level/smaller group that had more opportunities to rest. Oh, you mean maybe you shouldn't roll that extra wandering monster check? Well, maybe that falls into the category above...

- Toliudar's DMPCs give a way for the players, and more importantly the DM, to recognize when an encounter is too hard before the players start to take heavy losses.

Rather than them being intelligent and playing decent tactics? OK, all the arguments against DMPCs tend to fall down if you are running a newbie campaign, but that tends to suggest that DMPCs are only justifiable in that restricted field. And even then, I would argue that a sensible deployment of mentor NPCs would sort most of the problems

Maybe I should add this to the original article.

I think you should - especially anything that reinforces the argument against ever playing a DMPC! My problem is that I think (from having read these and other boards) that people reach for the DMPC to solve problems that could be solved by sensible and imaginative use of NPCs. And I can't help feeling it's down to the DM having the (entirely understandable) desire to run everything his way.

I really should stop ranting

[jjpickar]

Why rant? He already said this isn't a very good thing to do anyway. He's using this as a guide for those who cannot be dissuaded.

By the way, excellent article LotharBot.

[Raum]

Frankly, whatever good you get out of DMPCs you can also get out of hireling NPCs without all the potential for abuse when the DM is running a PC.

[LotharBot]

Give the Player Characters the option. Don't force a (DM)NPC Adventurer onto the Player Characters.

Great point. I brought in my DMPC our first week when we only had 2 players present, including one brand new player who needed to be shown most of the game mechanics (he's learned very well by example.) When we got up to a full group, I let them know that my DMPC could retire at any time at the request of any player. I reminded them again at level 6 and asked the group if they wanted me to retire him or keep him active, and the group agreed that they liked him and wanted him to stick around.

One thing I made sure to do was build my DMPC such that he'd fit very believeably into one of the allied groups in the campaign, so that if anyone did ask me to retire him, I could do so immediately, in a realistic manner. I could have him walk in and say "hey guys, Meerthan asked me to help him out, so I'm going to be working with him instead of adventuring with you" and he'd be gone.

In short, it's very important to be willing and ready to retire a DMPC at any moment.

NPC Adventurers do not need to be under DM control....
as the group splits up to do various tasks... the Player still has someone to play....
(DM)NPCs mean that Guest Players have a ready made Character to step into the shoes of.

All great points as well. This is, of course, also true of NPCs who don't normally go adventuring with the party but who are along for a short period of time.

this might be a good way to introduce a recurring villain. For example, a DMPC paladin could... comes back as a blackguard

That is pure genius.

why are you... putting them in a position where they need skills which are not reasonably available to them?

I personally am not. Nor is the module I'm running.

But, to answer the question as a hypothetical: there are times when the game world versimilitude breaks down if you ignore things like traps or random encounters. A dragon's lair without traps just doesn't make sense, nor does an orc-infested cavern where you can sleep for 8 hours without interruption. And there are times when you're running a module that was written with the expectation that certain skills would be present in your party. You could rewrite the module or never use certain types of encounters, but you could also run a DMPC. Both are possible options, and I hope my article helps some of the DMs who've chosen the latter.

what's wrong with giving them a side quest that earns them that extra 120GP

In general, nothing. Sometimes there's time pressure so a sidequest isn't reasonable, though.

Having a DMPC opens up more options for me as the DM. It means I can give sidequests OR avoid them in such a scenario. So, let me turn the question back to you: what's wrong with the DM creating additional options for interacting with the party?

I think (from having read these and other boards) that people reach for the DMPC to solve problems that could be solved by sensible and imaginative use of NPCs.

I agree. I don't advocate the use of DMPC's in general. I think most of the time you can solve problems in other, easier ways.

But I also don't advocate eliminating them from your toolbox of possible options. Sometimes DMs go to great lengths to solve problems in other ways when simply having a DMPC follow the party around would be easier. A DMPC is just an additional option a good DM can use in some circumstances.

whatever good you get out of DMPCs you can also get out of hireling NPCs without all the potential for abuse

There's always potential for abuse, whether you're using a DMPC or a hireling or whatever else. You're the DM, god of the gaming table, and if you WANT to abuse the game, you can whether or not you run your own pet character. Bad DMs will be bad DMs whether or not they run a DMPC.

The purpose of writing this guide is to teach DM's who don't want to be abusive how to avoid some of the major avenues for abuse. When it comes down to it, rule zero for DMPCs is still DON'T DO IT. But for the good DMs who have come to the conclusion that a DMPC is worthwhile in their game, I'm doing my best to help them avoid the main forms of abuse.

I appreciate the feedback from everyone. Keep it coming!

[ClericofPhwarrr]

Exalted feats can work great for good-aligned DMPCs that you don't want to spend too much attention on. For example, with Vow of Silence and Vow of Poverty, it's no big deal that your DMPC never talks or wants any of the loot.

[Jalil]

Vow of Silence? I'm not familar with that one. What's the bonus?

[Aquillion]

I like using nameless DMPCs who are conscious of the fact that they're second rate. Sometimes they wear red shirts. They're very existencial characters.

I agree with using DMPCs as redshirts. I've sometimes used one when it's clear the party needed backup, but they tend to die tragic deaths at the earliest possibile opportunity.

...also. I find it's good to avoid having DMPCs present themselves as full party members. For the most part, I used them like free hirlings--they should do what the party tells them to do. After all, the game isn't about them.

I'd avoid magic-using DMPCs whenever possible. Even at low levels where magic isn't overpowering, it can still have the sense of a 'poof, the DM saves the day', which (while sometimes necessary) shouldn't be made so obvious.

DMPCs can also move the plot along 'offstage' at points where you don't want to roleplay something--the NPC Expert advocate that the party rescued earlier and escorted back to town might be able to arrange the audience with the duke that they need, for instance, or broker a deal to get them out of prison later on. This can be taken too far, of course. ("Hey, guys, that dragon you were worried about? I killed it while you were asleep. No need to thank me... here's the loot it had.")

The players should always be the center of the story, but giving the sense that other people are taking actions around them and that they have allies out there they can call on when necessary can make the game world feel a little more believable.

[ClericofPhwarrr]

Vow of Silence? I'm not familar with that one. What's the bonus?

Ummm... now that I look for it, it's not there . I could have sworn that it was a feat, though. I remember talking about ways to possibly get around it, like using telepathy. But maybe I saw it in the homebrew section. Hmm.

Sorry about that.

[Tormsskull]

I used them like free hirlings--they should do what the party tells them to do. After all, the game isn't about them.

I find that doing this makes the game lose its sense of immersion. One of the players asks "What happened to Greglor the Mighty, our friend who helped us through the cave of Trolls" and another answers "Oh, he was a DMPC and since we didn't need him anymore he faded into the background." I guess it all depends on how well you want to hide the fact that the game is not real.

The players should always be the center of the story, but giving the sense that other people are taking actions around them and that they have allies out there they can call on when necessary can make the game world feel a little more believable.

The players should be the center of their story, but not the center of the world. Its one thing if the players choose to ditch a DMPC but the DM won't let them, its a totally different thing when everyone the players meet is lower level then them for fear that they will feel overshadowed.


I had a conversation recently with one of my old players who said he loved that I used an NPC who hung out with the party as a full group member. He said it was a way for me to interact with them on a much closer level, and thought it made the game more enjoyable.

Another of my players said they really liked my NPCs who hung out with the party as a full group member because they offered subtle hints if the party was way off target.

When a DM makes an adventure they have no way of knowing if the players are going to understand the situations/puzzles/encounter exactly as the DM expects them to understand them. I find that an NPC who hangs out with the party as a full group member can be useful to offer another prospective that they may be totally oblivious of rather than just having the voice of a god ring down on them.

Plus, the NPC who hangs out with the party as a full group member is often a great way to introduce the players to a lot of fluff through the eyes of that NPC. It adds a lot of layers to the world that they may otherwise never encounter.

[Aquillion]

I find that doing this makes the game lose its sense of immersion. One of the players asks "What happened to Greglor the Mighty, our friend who helped us through the cave of Trolls" and another answers "Oh, he was a DMPC and since we didn't need him anymore he faded into the background." I guess it all depends on how well you want to hide the fact that the game is not real.

The players should be the center of their story, but not the center of the world. Its one thing if the players choose to ditch a DMPC but the DM won't let them, its a totally different thing when everyone the players meet is lower level then them for fear that they will feel overshadowed.

The way I see this, basically, is that the world isn't supposed to be real. D&D is a model for heroic fantasy adventures; its "reality" is the reality of the Conan novels, Farhad and the Gray Mouser, the Tales of the Dying Earth, and so on. Player characters are substantially stronger, smarter, and faster than the norm, and learn new abilities at a rate that nobody else in the world (except their primary antagonists) can hope to match.

The world does revolve around the players, not just in game-mechanics terms, but as an integral part of the game's theme and setting. It shouldn't be made completely obvious (unless you're going for humor, I guess), but it is very much a part of heroic fantasy. The heroes are the ones who come back from episode to episode; other people, well, they tend not to.

Many settings are like this explictly. Eberron, for instance, has virtually no high-level characters other than the players--one of its chief antagonists, the Lord of Blades, is level twelve, and he is widely feared for his capabilities in personal combat.

The 'reality' of D&D isn't real get-a-scratch, catch-gangrene-and-die reality; it's heroic reality, the reality of movies, fantasy novels, and (yes) Star Trek. Having lesser hirelings, minions, and introduced-this-episode DMPCs die at an alarming rate is practically a law of physics in this world.

[Tallis]

RE: Vow of Silence

Ummm... now that I look for it, it's not there . I could have sworn that it was a feat, though. I remember talking about ways to possibly get around it, like using telepathy. But maybe I saw it in the homebrew section. Hmm.

Sorry about that.

Of course the fact that it is not a feat is no reason why your NPC/DMPC couldn't take a vow of silence, so it's still a viable option.

[Tormsskull]

Player characters are substantially stronger, smarter, and faster than the norm, and learn new abilities at a rate that nobody else in the world (except their primary antagonists) can hope to match.

That is a view that is shared by many people, and by myself but in a different way. The 'norm' that you are talking about would be a level 1 commoner IMO. So therefore a level 7 Fighter is substantially stronger than the norm. Practically god-like when compared to a level 1 commoner.

I think that a PC level 10 and an NPC level 10 of the same race and class with comparable equipment should be almost identical in power level. I don't give PCs anything special just because they are PCs. In my mind, mechanics and powers don't make the hero special. Its the PCs actions that separate them from the other would-be heroes of the world.

Also, I've always lived by the motto of "No matter how strong you get, there will always be someone stronger."

The world does revolve around the players, not just in game-mechanics terms, but as an integral part of the game's theme and setting.

Not in my campaigns. The focus of the game is on PCs, and the world reacts to their actions. But I don't have the "OMG the world is going to end unless you people save the day" syndrome that seems to be in a lot of adventures. PCs at level 1 are really not important at all (to the game world). PCs at level 5 have earned some fame/reputation/etc. At higher levels these increase dramatically. However, the world never stops spinning because the PCs decide not to show up.

Many settings are like this explictly. Eberron, for instance, has virtually no high-level characters other than the players--one of its chief antagonists, the Lord of Blades, is level twelve, and he is widely feared for his capabilities in personal combat.

I'm not a fan of Eberron at all, so I have only a passing knowledge of such elements of that campaign world. But once again, at level 12 a fighter (I'm guessing he is a fighter by his name) should be widely feared for his capabilities in personal combat. He could literally stand in an arena and take on wave after wave of level 1 soldiers without much difficulty.

The 'reality' of D&D isn't real get-a-scratch, catch-gangrene-and-die reality; it's heroic reality, the reality of movies, fantasy novels, and (yes) Star Trek.

That depends on what you model your campaigns on. If a player dies an unheroic death because they made a bad decision, I let that player be dead. I don't alter the world to compensate for their bad decisions.

And, how this all ties back into DMPCs (if you use that term): Yeah, they shouldn't outshine the PCs based on the DM making them shine. But if they happen to outshine a PC because of a decision that the PC party made, I don't see a problem with it. Either the party will decide they don't like to be shown up by whoever this DMPC is and ditch him (which the DM should not prevent) or they will embrace the DMPC and go along with it.

As an example, in one of the campaigns I was running the party of 3 PCs and 1 NPC slew the main boss of this particular cavern and had a bunch of loot to distribute. Since they had no way of identifying the equipment, they decided that everyone would roll a die, and the highest would get to pick what piece that wanted, then the second, and so on.

The NPC (being a lawful good fellow who wasn't greedy at all) said he didn't mind taking whatever item the other people didn't want. So the three players pick in succession and then the last item went to the NPC. I had already pre-generated the items before hand, but the way they picked the NPC got the arguably "best" of the items.

Now, if my world truly rotated around the characters I would have winged it and made the NPCs item weaker or buffed up the PCs items so they could feel secure in their herolinity. But, I believe the world doesn't change to suit the PCs, so I kept it as is. When they had a chance to get everything I.D.ed they all kinda groaned when they realized they had passed up a good item, but it wasn't some kind of campaign-ending catastrophe.

As a player I have always felt that if the DM fuged to let me survive or "fixed" the world so that things fell perfectly into our laps that I was being cheated out of a good gaming session. When a deadly situation is presented to me, and I manage to navigate my way safely through it, I want to know I succeded because of my plan, my brains, or my lucky rolls or whatever.

If I found that the DM had fudged to allow me to live then it would make the campaign world seem less "real" (subjective term) and I wouldn't have fun.

So all in all, I'd say it all depends on the DM & the player's preference.