Acceptable DMPCs?

[wumpus]

After laughing at this thread I was wondering about workable DMPCs. For obvious reasons, I expect the list is going to be short.

1. The Gandalf (citation: the-site-that-shall-not-be-linked). [for new players only] Don't bother stating him up, just make sure he can handle any threat and show the characters the ropes. Critical Point: he leaves/dies before things get tough. Problem: doesn't really serve the point of a DMPC in that he can't really advance, and isn't around for the real xp/loot. The satire thread might even be made to work if the whole campaign revolved around resurrecting the Mary Sue who bought it in the first encounter (but is prophesied to defeat the BEEG, hopefully a dragon dying from eating her), but I suspect that a face/heel turn after a short exposure would make a far better villain (how do you make a villain that your players *want* to slay without squicking them out? Use a Mary Sue).

2. The Vow of Silence. Was originally going to label him/her "the sidekick", but that is likely de rigeur for workable DMPCs. This one simply has taken a vow of silence (beyond the historical sense that allowed limited sign language*) and thus is incapable of party decisions and discussions (some NPC authority/the gods assigned him/her to the party (but can still flee if abused)). Note that any hints delivered to the party should not involve the sidekick, but use other means (to keep the party from badgering/torturing the poor sidekick). Ideal for healbots in systems without CoDzillas, or maybe meatshields in high power D&D.

Any other ideas?

* said sign language was important in Renaissance art (and probably before/after as well). If the artist felt a need to communicate beyond the actual image, the people would often have their hands positioned in ways meaningful in the monkish sign language. I suspect this is the only reason we know of this language, or at least the actual signs.

[AMFV]

ANY DMPC can be acceptable if the group has fun. That includes the DM playing another player character even. In fact there are systems where this is an expected part of the system. I would argue that any set of guidelines is going to be either too vague or too narrow to really be useful beyond a set that depends largely on game and playstyle.

[DigoDragon]

One of the most well-liked DMPCs I've had was Astraxia. She started off as a red dragon antagonist against the PCs, but after a while the party was warming up to her goal (to overthrow the rulers of a nation that encroached upon her lair). The PCs warmed up because the campaign BBEG was hiding in this nation behind a Wall of red tape. Overthrowing the rulers meant the country collapses and the PCs can then get past the borders to do their will with impunity.

Anyway, the party was on a side adventure to slay a powerful vampire. The vampire cursed Astraxia into the body of a female elf. I replaced her dragon levels with bard levels because I thought the party could use an extra buff-giver on the team. I kept her sass intact though. She was 2 levels behind the party, but still high enough to keep up and be useful with those bard buffs. She never took the spotlight from the PCs, but the players got to really like her as a character. Despite the fact she was technically evil (though a very cooperative kind of evil).

After slaying the vampire, the PCs had the choice of breaking Astraxia's curse or leaving her as an elf. They actually broke the curse. Also, three PCs gave her their "resume" to be one of her thralls/minions/slaves because they just found her so much fun to hang around. Thankfully the paladin and fighter brought them to their senses. Since then Astraxia didn't adventure with them, but the party had her respect. And she had their admiration.

[daremetoidareyo]

A silent kender master rogue. Think about it, it would be awesome. He's got 3 bags of holding full of neat things. He can't be scared by nothin. He always has access to some item that might be helpful. He can play the harmonica at night. His rust monster cohort would be so helpful!

[Flickerdart]

There are basically two reasons why a DMPC might be bad, and they both boil down to "why are the PCs even there?"

Mechanically: the DMPC is exceptionally powerful compared to the party, and steals the spotlight. The PCs fight mooks or don't fight at all. The PCs wonder why he needs help.
Roleplaying-wise: the DMPC is a plot exposition dump machine (or talks to plot dump NPCs), and essentially railroads the party. The game becomes a series of cutscenes. The PCs wonder why he needs them if he already knows everything.

You should also ask yourself why you are having a DMPC in the first place. There is basically only one reason that holds water: the party is missing a key role - either because there are too few of them or because nobody wanted to play the healbot/skillmonkey/punching bag/whatever.

So we need a guy who can fill roles people don't like, avoid taking the spotlight, and avoid bossing the party around. One option is to just go for a weak guy, but I recommend the alternative - the Mario.

The Mario is not particularly great at any one task, but he's there when the party needs him for anything. Scout ahead for ambushes? Send the DMPC. Heal the fighter? Send the DMPC. The gruff band of mercenaries needs to eavesdrop at a nobleman's ball? Send the DMPC. Need a letter forged? Send the DMPC. He's the "take 10" of party members.

[LordFluffy]

Comedy relief: He's statted okay, but he is primarily there to add color to the world, not to make the big plays. His skills are all supplemental. Medic, buffer, boring science person... any of the above with a dash of wit.

I had a game based on the Justifier's system from the 80's. A hyperactive squirrel anthropomorph with an enormous revolver. He was the team medic. He worked well as a tension breaker.

He was also a pivotal plot point, but he didn't come into play in that regard until the last adventure I ran with that group. :)

[ImNotTrevor]

I think my favorite GMPC is the one your characters force you to have.

An NPC ends up being forcefully recruited to the group, for instance. If the GM has played them all along, suddenly he has a PC.

All of my GMPCs have come this way, and because of that they are all really weird.

An AI, A drug dealer, and a cultist who worships acid rain have all been GMPCs I've been wrangled into playing.

[Âmesang]

He can play the harmonica at night.

I'd like this… but only after the PCs say "goodnight" to each other by name.

(To be honest I do tend to find bards make decent "DMPCs" …probably due to being the fifth-wheel of your typical four-man party, with just enough of everything to fill-in-the-gaps.)

[Mastikator]

3. Dies early either to drop fat loot for the PCs or to facilitate the plot. Either way it will be cathartic to the PCs when the DMPC dies and the players will forgive you for having a DMPC.

[Thrudd]

Why call it a DMPC instead of an NPC? If the implication is that the DM uses this character as their own permanent party member in order to influence the direction and actions of the other players, then there is no such thing as an acceptable DMPC. An NPC which accompanies the party on a regular basis should be either a lower level companion or hireling. They should not help solve problems via DM exposition. Equal and higher level NPCs should not be accompanying the party for more than a brief time, if ever.
The best way to run an NPC companion is to let the players control them in combat, and determine their knowledge and opinions (if the players ask for them) randomly. Just because the DM is acting the part of the level 1 torch bearer doesn't mean the guy should give good advice about which direction to choose or anything else, nor that he has accurate information about everything or anything.

[nedz]

It is very easy to confuse NPCs with DMPCs.

It doesn't help that there is no hard definition which can tell you this so one person's NPC is another's DMPC.

I would argue that DMPCs you find acceptable, and again the latter point is subjective, are in fact NPCs.

[AMFV]

It is very easy to confuse NPCs with DMPCs.

It doesn't help that there is no hard definition which can tell you this so one person's NPC is another's DMPC.

I would argue that DMPCs you find acceptable, and again the latter point is subjective, are in fact NPCs.

I would disagree completely. There are NPCs who are unacceptable and are NOT DMPCs for a wide variety of reasons. And there are likewise acceptable DMPCs. Again there are games that allow for and encourage the presence of DMPCs. Certainly there are no problems with DMPCs who are party members when the players are okay with it.

I'm frankly seeing a shocking amount of "wrongbadfun" when it comes to DMPCs, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of having a DMPC as long as the DM can separate from the role as DM and the interests of his character (and the degree of separation varies a lot by game).

[CharonsHelper]

3. Dies early either to drop fat loot for the PCs or to facilitate the plot. Either way it will be cathartic to the PCs when the DMPC dies and the players will forgive you for having a DMPC.

Lol - that just reminds me of the first security guard in half-life. (the 1st one) Security guards have pistols and would link up with you and help you in fights etc. - but they couldn't follow you into air ducts. You have to leave the 1st one behind before you even get a gun (crowbar!)... so I killed him and took his gun. >.<

[nedz]

There are NPCs who are unacceptable and are NOT DMPCs for a wide variety of reasons.

Can you give me some examples please ?

Note: since the DM runs NPCs and DMPCs there is no functional difference, these two things differ only by how we choose to define them.

[AMFV]

Can you give me some examples please ?

Note: since the DM runs NPCs and DMPCs there is no functional difference, these two things differ only by how we choose to define them.

A DMPC is a character that the DM plays as his character. In the same sense that a player plays one. He has his own narrative interests outside of that of the DM's greater narrative. An NPC is only there to support the greater narrative.

Functionally this may appear the same, and may often be the same, but I would argue that the motivations and the intentions are different enough to require a different definition.

A DMPC that runs roughshod over a party is liable to be motivated by very different inclinations than a regular NPC that does, although they may appear similar.

QUOTE=nedz;20196855]These two things differ only by how we choose to define them.[/QUOTE]

All things do. As with many things there is a judgement call however. I would simply argue that allowing for two disparate definitions is useful here rather than confusing.

[SimonMoon6]

I think my favorite GMPC is the one your characters force you to have.

An NPC ends up being forcefully recruited to the group, for instance. If the GM has played them all along, suddenly he has a PC.

Something like that happened to me in a 1st edition D&D game once. While the PCs were on an island of beholders, I rolled for a random encounter. I rolled an ogre. So, what's an ogre doing on an island of beholders? Running away, of course! So, the PCs met him as he was running away and he joined up with them. However, he became less of a DMPC than, well, a hireling. The PC who recruited him into the group got to control him in combat (mostly). The group was meant to have another DMPC (a gnome cleric/illusionist) because the group didn't have a cleric, but then someone else joined the group and made a cleric, so he became another NPC who did whatever this one particular PC wanted him to do in combat. Eventually, all the PCs got extra NPCs to control in combat, so it sort of balanced out? I don't know, it was a weird game.

But I have had rather different experiences with DMPCs overall. I remember in one superhero game (where I was just a player), the DMPC was generally disliked. At one point (since he often gave useful advice), one player (when at a loss for what to do) just said, "Well, we'll just follow [the DMPC] wherever he goes," though the DMPC wasn't really being run as an omniscient kind of character.

Whereas in games I've run, I've had DMPCs and often tried to downplay them or remove them from the game, but the players actually were opposed to that. They wanted the DMPC around. So, you know, whatcha gonna do? (But then, my DMPCs never steal the show and never know the answers to the problems the PCs face, occasionally offering merely reasonable advice but no more than that.)

[Steampunkette]

Agreed with AMFV.

I've had DMPCS and NPCS move with the party, sometimes together. The NPCS get less individual narrative focus than the DMPCS who is meant to be more to the party as a character.

[DireSickFish]

I've had spectator NPC's before. They follow the adventurers around and give off exposition or point out things I want them to know as a way for me to interact with the party and give info in a dungeon. They will then leave after that and don't really take part in combat. It also allows me to flesh out an NPC so the party actually remembers who they are and what there motivations are later. They can act a lot like a DMNPC if I need to show that they are combat capable.

Other times the PC's request aid or to work together and I don't have sufficient reason to deny them. Then the paladins of undead smiting help with the zombie problem or whatever. Since it's kind of a last minute thing I'll either use combat stats if they were intended to be an opponent or have them swing longswords about for minuscule damage. The NPC human statblocks at the back of the Monster manual help out a lot for this sort of thing.

I see DMC's as a good idea for a low player count game when the DM doesn't feel comfortable scaling the encounters for that few players, or some one can't make the game and the party is going to want it to take on the challenges already presented.

I could see having a DMPC be a plot important NPC that the party will be able to influence/advise on his path. If you go the whole prince route with him perhaps the PC's can use him to get themselves into positions of power without having to fight over who gets to be "in charge". Or what values he'll eventually found his order of knights on based on the PCs. The important thing with a DMPC like this the the player actions need to drive the plot not your DMPC's.

Edit: This is mostly conjecture as I haven't played with DMPC as a PC nor used them as a DM.

[nedz]

A DMPC is a character that the DM plays as his character. In the same sense that a player plays one. He has his own narrative interests outside of that of the DM's greater narrative. An NPC is only there to support the greater narrative.

By these definitions I have neither DMPCs not NPCs

I do tend to run sand boxey games where NPCs have their own interests and agendas - often benign.

[Red Fel]

I'm frankly seeing a shocking amount of "wrongbadfun" when it comes to DMPCs, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of having a DMPC as long as the DM can separate from the role as DM and the interests of his character (and the degree of separation varies a lot by game).

This.

I have frequently espoused the position that a DMPC is not an inherently bad thing, but instead constitutes a yellow flag. Not even a red flag, just a yellow one.

The DMPC is grounds for a raised eyebrow. It is dangerous territory. In the hands of the immature, the power-hungry, the show-off, or the controlling GM, it becomes a problem. Even in the hands of a fair-minded GM who can separate the character's interests and knowledge from the GM's own, it is dangerous territory.

Consider the following scenario. The DMPC is the only spellcaster in the party. The GM (but not the DMPC) knows that there is an obstacle coming up which could be trivialized by a spell, if the DMPC prepares it. There are several ways this could go down.

• The DMPC prepares the spell. The party easily overcomes the obstacle. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for using metagame knowledge to pave the road for his DMPC. This is irrespective of whether the GM used metagame knowledge.
• The DMPC does not prepare the spell. The obstacle is or is not overcome, but the players are aware of the fact that, had the DMPC prepared the spell in question, it would have been trivial. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for deliberately avoiding the use of the spell that would trivialize the encounter, based on his metagame knowledge. This is irrespective of metagame knowledge.
• To ensure conclusively that he cannot be accused of using metagame knowledge in spell selection, the GM selects the DMPC's spells at random. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for the fact that his idiot useless DMPC prepared Create Water a dozen times.

Note how I said "the players may be fine with this" in each scenario. That's because, as I've stated, use of a DMPC is not inherently bad. Rule of Fun prevails; if the players don't have a problem, you're doing alright. However, there is no situation with a DMPC where it is impossible for the players to take issue. Such a situation doesn't exist. Either you're preparing your DMPC for encounters of which you're aware (whether you are or aren't), or you're deliberately not preparing them (whether you are or aren't), or you're doing things randomly, which is stupid. It's entirely too easy to fall into a no-win situation.

Mature players and a mature GM make a DMPC possible. There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea. But it takes trust and an even hand. And if any of those is missing, the flag waves, the eyebrow goes up, and you watch your back.

[Flickerdart]

There are several ways this could go down.

• The DMPC prepares the spell.
• The DMPC does not prepare the spell.
• The GM selects the DMPC's spells at random.

In this particular case, there's actually a fourth, much better option: the DMPC asks the party what he should prepare for the day, and the PCs ask the DMPC to prepare spells they think they might need, scribe scrolls, etc. They might still complain, but at that point if the DMPC didn't prepare the spell in question, that's mostly on them.

[Red Fel]

In this particular case, there's actually a fourth, much better option: the DMPC asks the party what he should prepare for the day, and the PCs ask the DMPC to prepare spells they think they might need, scribe scrolls, etc. They might still complain, but at that point if the DMPC didn't prepare the spell in question, that's mostly on them.

Valid choice. But at that point, he's becoming less a DMPC and more a GM-run cohort to the players. The more control over the DMPC the GM cedes to the players, the less it's a DMPC.

By comparison, if a player runs his PC, and another player creates a PC, and then pretty much lets the first player run it, the second PC is less a PC (run by the second player) and more a cohort (run by the first player). If we're defining a DMPC as "player character run by the GM," the less the GM runs it, the less it's a DMPC.

The whole point of a DMPC is that, for whatever reason, the GM needs or wants to operate a character. Not just an NPC, but a character, to travel and fight alongside the PCs and be comparable in power to them. Letting the PCs run an aspect of this character undercuts that purpose, somewhat.

[veti]

Consider the following scenario. The DMPC is the only spellcaster in the party. The GM (but not the DMPC) knows that there is an obstacle coming up which could be trivialized by a spell, if the DMPC prepares it.

The DM is running the session. It's up to them to decide: should this obstacle be trivial, or not? That's a decision that you might want to go either way, depending on (among other things) the structure of the scenario, the tempo of the session, and the mood of the players at the time. I would try to put off as late as possible, right up to "how is the session going and how are the party all feeling, at the point when they get to the obstacle?"

And only then would I decide if the DMPC has prepared that spell today - unless the PCs have somehow forced me to declare it earlier, of course.

Sure, there's potential for the players to moan. But as you point out, that's always true.

[nedz]

• The DMPC prepares the spell. The party easily overcomes the obstacle. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for using metagame knowledge to pave the road for his DMPC. This is irrespective of whether the GM used metagame knowledge.
• The DMPC does not prepare the spell. The obstacle is or is not overcome, but the players are aware of the fact that, had the DMPC prepared the spell in question, it would have been trivial. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for deliberately avoiding the use of the spell that would trivialize the encounter, based on his metagame knowledge. This is irrespective of metagame knowledge.
• To ensure conclusively that he cannot be accused of using metagame knowledge in spell selection, the GM selects the DMPC's spells at random. The players may be fine with this, or they may criticize the GM for the fact that his idiot useless DMPC prepared Create Water a dozen times.

In the first two cases here the DM is metagaming. With the random case, as with Flickerdart's example, it's not a DMPC; since the DM is not making the decisions for the character.

Metagaming is unavoidable with a DMPC, which is the problem.

[JeenLeen]

In agreement others, I think a DMPC best works when 1) it's fun for the group and 2) the DMPC fills a hole.

My gaming group currently has 2 players and 1 DM. That's a small number of PCs, so the DM rarely but when needed will create and DMPC to accompany us. It's somewhere between DMPC and NPC, since it's not always the same character but more often some guy who accompanies us for a few missions. But we had at least one game where the DM was a healbot-trapfinder since none of us wanted to do that role. It works well, and he's willing to say OOC that his character does not have an opinion or will not cast a tie-breaking vote because he's the DM and he doesn't want to influence us.

(But I've heard horror stories of bad DMPCs, so I see why folk are wary. I would be if I didn't trust my DM and want the help in-game.)

----

With the spellcasting list question: a DMPC caster could have a prepared set of spells they always prepare, unless the party recommends something different or the situation is obvious. (I do that when I'm making a caster to avoid the work of thinking over spells each day.)

[nedz]

Playing any game is about making decisions.

In an RPG the players have imperfect information, whilst the DM has perfect information.

Quite often you find yourself in a situation where you have a number of options, some of which will work, some of which will not. The player has to work out which option their character will take.

Now if you have perfect information you will know the answer so you cannot make this decision. You do get to make a different decision: do I get this right, or do I screw up ? This is not playing a character, this is deciding how to metagame.

[Cazero]

In the first two cases here the DM is metagaming. With the random case, as with Flickerdart's example, it's not a DMPC; since the DM is not making the decisions for the character.

Metagaming is unavoidable with a DMPC, which is the problem.

Arguable.
The DMPC needs to prepare his spells. He should always prepare the same list without a good reason to prepare specific spells. Those reasons can be obvious environemental factor (Light in the Underdark) or are the result of a collective effort of preparation by the players. Having their wizard buddy trivialize an encounter is much less problematic in that case because it still rewards the players.
But the DMPC will eventualy meet both described situations (an unexpected problem is trivialized with the right spell, or isn't but could have been). If the DMPC was using his usual spell list, there was no metagaming involved, period.
"But the DM designed the encounter !" So what? He has to challenge his players with new things regularly and systematicaly avoiding encounter that can/can't be trivialized by the DMPC is a different DMPC problem (the Useless Sidekick/Mary Sue dichotomy problem).


A DM can run a DMPC without metagaming. The complaints will come from the players assuming a metagaming issue, and making that assumption is metagaming. If your players don't metagame when they shouldn't, there is no metagaming with your DMPC.


edited : ninja'd. Might as well add some stuff.

Playing any game is about making decisions.

In an RPG the players have imperfect information, whilst the DM has perfect information.

Quite often you find yourself in a situation where you have a number of options, some of which will work, some of which will not. The player has to work out which option their character will take.

Now if you have perfect information you will know the answer so you cannot make this decision. You do get to make a different decision: do I get this right, or do I screw up ? This is not playing a character, this is deciding how to metagame.

According success/failure : the DM can't predict rolls. He can cheat, but that's has nothing to do with that "perfect information" paradigm.
According perfect information : making the decision the character would do while ignoring additional information the player have is an everyday exercise in RPGs, trivial for competent roleplayers. The DM can totally do that.

[nedz]

If the DMPC was using his usual spell list, there was no metagaming involved, period.

But which spell does he cast ?

A DM can run a DMPC without metagaming. The complaints will come from the players assuming a metagaming issue, and making that assumption is metagaming. If your players don't metagame when they shouldn't, there is no metagaming with your DMPC.

This came up recently on a thread about Sense Motive and whether the DM should make the rolls secretly. By revealing OOC information you invalidate the player's choices because metagaming is unavoidable. The DM has all of the OOC information.

According success/failure : the DM can't predict rolls. He can cheat, but that's has nothing to do with that "perfect information" paradigm.
According perfect information : making the decision the character would do while ignoring additional information the player have is an everyday exercise in RPGs, trivial for competent roleplayers. The DM can totally do that.

This problem is not trivial, it's impossible.

If a DM can second guess a decision a player would make, given imperfect information, they can totally predict rolls.

[VoxRationis]

A DM of any worth is capable of not metagaming with a party-affiliated NPC: after all, their villains already aren't metagaming (most of the time).

I'd like to posit the archetype of The Guide for acceptable DM party members. All too often, players, particularly in "if-it's-printed-it's-playable" environments like those encouraged by this forum, will make characters wholly alien to the setting, or at least to the locality. At this point, someone needs to be able to consistently tell them what's what in the local area—not necessarily to point to them where to go, but to tell them what is where they're pointing. This person has all the local knowledge the party needs to get by, and speaks any local languages the players ignored during character creation.
And really, is it realistic to keep 0-level hirelings around when the party's going up against 40-orc warbands and fireball-tossing wizards as a matter of course? No sane person would associate with such danger-stricken individuals for more than half an hour unless they were equally powerful. So The Guide needs to be of power comparable to a not-particularly-strong party member—at least in durability. A fighter-type, particularly one geared towards survivability, fits the bill nicely. Doesn't steal kills, but can guard a more delicate party member, and isn't going to be a liability.

[lsfreak]

Personally I'd define the DMPC-NPC scale as relating to character transience.

DMPCs are a genuine part of the party. They are expected to stay with the other characters for the duration of the campaign and be an active participant in the overall plot. Removing them from the party is something that has to be discussed out-of-game.

NPCs are less bound to the party. They have their own life, and their own story. They may be with the party for a time, but there's no expectation that they'll be involved all the way to the end. Nor are they usually part of the party from the start the way a PC is expected to be (assuming a fairly consistent group). They may leave at any time in a way that a PC can't, at least not without being replaced, and the players may decide they don't like the NPC and "vote him off the island" without any of the hurt feelings you'd get if 3 players decided they didn't like the 4th's character.