Scene stealing NPC's

[Spo]

I have had bad luck being in games where different DM's create NPC's that become the "star" of the show.

In a homebrew campaign, the DNPC was an edge-lord something that brooded around and made the kill shots on a lot of the big baddies (and always the same "cool ass" way - "he takes out his daggers and stabs him in the eyes with them." (yawn). Mercifully that campaigned ended when the DM lost interest in the game.

And just last night we wrapped up Frostmaiden. where our party somehow got this dog that was cute and smart and strong and magical and special and blah blah blah. OMG!!! If the DM said it once he said it 100 times how he created "Fred" in other campaigns and people just LOVED him. Fred would solve the mysteries, find the secret doors, attack the main monster. Basically, if you wanted to stay alive in the game you stayed near Fred the AC400 plot armor dog. By the final battle, I was opening commenting on how powerful deus ex machina dog and questioning if our presence was needed. It was a good thing that show is over.

In other games I have seen NPC's run by GM's wonderfully. I think the secret to that pleasant experience was that they had a memorable personality and were background characters, never stepping into the spotlight. Me good memories of them involved rescuing them as opposed to watching them kill steal from the players.

Has anyone else experienced this and why are some DMs in love with their NPC's?

[Gtdead]

Oh man, don't even remind me.

In my first ever 5e game, I wanted to create a Ranger that would be introduced to the party as a guide to a long forgotten temple. I had given the DM the character sheet, the backstory and all, but since the game had a couple of newbies, I decided instead to play a Sorcadin to be the meatshield, so I retired the Ranger. However the DM liked him enough to keep him as an NPC, and he stole the damn show. He was with us in every combat, he was the protagonist in most social encounters etc. It was extremely annoying and I was feeling guilty cause he was my damn character and he was nothing like I pictured him!

[JackPhoenix]

It's called a DMPC. Usually a result of the GM wanting to play a character within their own game, but, of course, being in control everything mean they can make the character as awesome as they want.

I recommend pointing out the GM is playing with himself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The flip side is when a DM makes a throwaway NPC (not a DMPC) and it unexpectedly becomes the fan favorite and the entire scene/session gets warped around that one NPC. Or they get co-opted as the party mascot.

[Saint-Just]

The flip side is when a DM makes a throwaway NPC (not a DMPC) and it unexpectedly becomes the fan favorite and the entire scene/session gets warped around that one NPC. Or they get co-opted as the party mascot.

The difference is between the scene being stolen and the scene voluntarily given (by at least a majority, or better yet unanimous decision of players).

[Zhorn]

Too many bad experiences with DMPCs have poisoned me to the idea of playing them.

My general approach has been if an NPC joins the party, they are always controlled in combat or for skill checks by a player.

For RP it comes down to the function of the NPC in the story. If it's a sidekick, with little-to-no plot relevance, a different player to the one the NPC is associated with can pick it up if they want to 'try out' a different RP dynamic that their current character won't do.
Example, the party takes on a treasure loving kobold as a pet. The lawful paladin might RP in character they are above the rogues thieving ways, but as a player wants to participate as the kleptomaniac-kobold to help support their fellow player at the table.
But if the NPC has plot relevance, then the RP will be kept to the DM's control.

For scene exploration and whatnot, I try to have them stick to just aspects that are a given, or at least what I assume would be. Asking what I'd assume the obvious questions would be, or nudging some of the clues a bit more into the player's vision.

Oh, and I always have a known reason for them not planning to stick around too long. Helpful enough to tag along when the players are in need of help, but busy enough with their own things that they are actively looking for the off-ramp at the nearest convenience.

[Pex]

The flip side is when a DM makes a throwaway NPC (not a DMPC) and it unexpectedly becomes the fan favorite and the entire scene/session gets warped around that one NPC. Or they get co-opted as the party mascot.

As a player, guilty several times. The personality and/or circumstances the DM used clicks or "goes viral". It's a good thing because it means the players care about the gameworld and the NPCs in it. Ideally the DM should find a way to get the NPC out of the spotlight but not kill him off. One easy way is when the party has a home base. The NPC can move in and run the place while the party is away. Generally the party wants a friend, someone in the game world with no agenda other than living his life. Nothing to do with campaign plot. Not wanting anything from the party. Just be a friend to have that one person the PCs can speak with for sake of friendly banter and conversation.

If an NPC is to join the party, have class levels, engage in combat, gain levels, then the solution is to let the players run the character. When the players adopt such an NPC he is a full member, getting equal share of treasure and magic items that suit him.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The only reason I brought that up was because the thread title immediately made me think of all the times the scene was supposed to revolve around the party interacting with NPC 1, only for NPC 2 to steal the scene out from under him, mostly due to some idiosyncratic whim of a player.

[ad_hoc]

I avoid having NPCs be part of the adventuring party as much as possible.

If they do need to be there then I just resolve their turns quickly by jotting down average damage or whatever.

As a DM I am already taking up too much time at the table, I don't want more to do.

Sounds like you've learned about some red flags. If you see that sort of thing again get out of there straight away. It's all downhill.

[Kurt Kurageous]

There is no way a DMPC doesn't trip the conflict of interest alarm, and the more Mary Sue, the louder the alarm. DMs, it's like having an affair. It's exciting at first, but do you really think you are going to get away with it forever? The world, the game is your spouse. Love it. Stay faithful. Don't DMPC.

The only upside of DMPCs is the ability to backfill explicit skills missing from the party portfolio. The new sidekick rules pretty much cover that, so the DMPC has no upside.

Don't DMPC.

[KorvinStarmast]

Don't DMPC.

I'll suggest a minor mod to that:
Friends don't let friends DMPC.

[BRC]

The tricky thing about DMPC's is that the individual components that make up a DMPC tend to work well in isolation.

Recurring NPC's, who stick around and continue to play a role in the campaign are good.

NPC's who contribute alongside the PC's are ALSO good. It can be fun to have an ally in the fight who can pull their own weight.

However, the second point only works because it's a deviation from the norm. The novelty of a useful ally is cool and fun, once they are no longer novel, they're just sitting around eating up table time resolving attacks (Although I usually hand Allied NPC's off to Players to control, that only mitigates the issue).


If you have an NPC who contributes alongside the players, and who sticks around as a major character in the story, then you get a DMPC.

And in Theory, the DM having a Player Character of their own doesn't sound bad, but it's full of traps, because Good Ideas become Bad Ideas when applied to NPCs.

Having an arc centering around resolving a PC's backstory conflict is a Good Idea, because incorporating the players contributions into the game keeps players invested.
Having an arc centering around resolving your DMPC's backstory conflict is a Bad Idea, because you're not actually incorporating the player's contributions, you're just making them watch while you tell a story.


Giving a player a cool custom magic item that supports their character is a Good Idea! Giving an NPC a cool magic item that supports the character is a Bad Idea.


And most of all, since you've now added a DMPC to the party, you've given yourself a voice in party decisions, and it's so, so easy to fall into the trap of "And then DMPC Will Respond by doing X", because you can just make that happen, and it's LIKE the Party doing the cool thing, since DMPC is a member of the Party, and it's easy to forget that having your NPC suggest/do something cool isn't the same thing as having the Players do something cool, even if they are "A member of the Party". Emergent Storytelling happens when the Players respond to the scenario being presented. If you have DMPC in the picture, you're not "Responding" to the scenario, you're just...writing a story.

In general, I say NPCs should either

1) Not contribute directly to the resolving of issues (They can give information/help, but they shouldn't be wading into things making skill checks)
Or
2) Only stick around for a few sessions at most.


One of my favorite tricks is to have PC-Equivalent NPC's "Go fight some enemies over there" whenever battle starts, with the idea being that they're keeping mooks off the PC's backs while the PC's win the battle for real.


Edit: For my current campaign, the PC's actually have a handful of allied "Adventuring Parties" who are off doing their own things. On occasion, they'll team up with the PC's to take on a big threat, which means that my players get to pilot some extra characters for, like, an encounter or two before the two groups split up to pursue different objectives in the same place.

Like, the players get to play with a new set of stats as they control allies while the two groups breach the outer defenses of the dungeon, then the PC's go try to stop the Dark Ritual while the NPC Squad goes to free the captured prisoners and escort them out.

[Kurt Kurageous]

And most of all, since you've now added a DMPC to the party, you've given yourself a voice in party decisions, and it's so, so easy to fall into the trap of "And then DMPC Will Respond by doing X", because you can just make that happen, and it's LIKE the Party doing the cool thing, since DMPC is a member of the Party, and it's easy to forget that having your NPC suggest/do something cool isn't the same thing as having the Players do something cool, even if they are "A member of the Party".

A DMPC is often foisted or forced on the party. Every suggestion they make, every idea they give is tainted by this first act. You as DM might as well add, "or else" at the end of every suggested course of action, because that's how the players take it.

[BRC]

A DMPC is often foisted or forced on the party. Every suggestion they make, every idea they give is tainted by this first act. You as DM might as well add, "or else" at the end of every suggested course of action, because that's how the players take it.

If you DO want an NPC to stick around and have ideas, it helps to make sure they have a huge, obvious flaw in their reasoning. Some defining character trait that is clearly influencing their suggestions.

For example, if the NPC is a glory-hound knight who constantly goes on about "The great songs that will be sung about this day", they can contribute ideas (So long as they always actually let the PC's take the lead) along the lines of "Things that look cool and will sound good in the retelling" rather than "Things that are actually Good Ideas", and since the NPC's agenda is so blatant, it won't come across as The DM speaking and saying "Here is the thing to do".

[Spo]

If you DO want an NPC to stick around and have ideas, it helps to make sure they have a huge, obvious flaw in their reasoning. Some defining character trait that is clearly influencing their suggestions.

For example, if the NPC is a glory-hound knight who constantly goes on about "The great songs that will be sung about this day", they can contribute ideas (So long as they always actually let the PC's take the lead) along the lines of "Things that look cool and will sound good in the retelling" rather than "Things that are actually Good Ideas", and since the NPC's agenda is so blatant, it won't come across as The DM speaking and saying "Here is the thing to do".

That is a good idea on paper. Imagine a DMPC rogue who is clearly motivated by wealth. They can contribute in battle but every decision they make or suggests is about making money and less than honest ways.

The problem though, is that the DM has to be true to that stereotype and not turn sneaky cutthroat into heroic mary sue. That is the danger of this type of love affair.

[pwykersotz]

Yeah, a DM who is too in love with an NPC is a recipe for disaster. In general, if you want to give the party an NPC because it makes sense for various reasons, give the players control of them.

I bet Fred the dog wouldn't have been nearly as annoying if the GM gave him a few innate spells and gave him to the party to control. But that means he'd have to put in the work of making the party want to take him, reconciling that he has to balance the abilities, and it means learning to let go of your precious creation. I don't say that dismissively, it's sometimes a hard lesson to learn.

[stoutstien]

The triple point where the world, the party, and all the NPCs interact is probably the most important part of the game while also being the most frustrating balance to maintain. Most people want to keep them separate but then it feels like a paper world with 2 line if dialog NPCs walking around in it. OTOH you can't fully mix them together or you run the risk of the party feeling mostly pointless (of course in some campaigns this isn't a bad thing).
Any time a NPC is going to spend any noticeable amount of time in contact with the party it's going to be a stress point and the largest chance for immersion for the players. There isn't a secret formula to make sure it always works sadly. Some say avoiding NPCs in this manner is the key but eventually a player will adopt one because they are playing an open ended rpg for a reason.

[Doug Lampert]

I avoid having NPCs be part of the adventuring party as much as possible.

If they do need to be there then I just resolve their turns quickly by jotting down average damage or whatever.

As a DM I am already taking up too much time at the table, I don't want more to do.

Sounds like you've learned about some red flags. If you see that sort of thing again get out of there straight away. It's all downhill.

I always let a player run any NPC allies. Their sheets are simple (especially in any game but D&D 3.x), so a player can run it. Just hand the sheet to a player, if no one is willing to run the character in combat, then he or she stands in the back holding a torch or ate the fish last night or whatever.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I always let a player run any NPC allies. Their sheets are simple (especially in any game but D&D 3.x), so a player can run it. Just hand the sheet to a player, if no one is willing to run the character in combat, then he or she stands in the back holding a torch or ate the fish last night or whatever.

This is absolutely the best way to handle 'combat' NPC's and not have players hate them. I once had a game that ballooned to something like 9 NPC's joining the players, and while everyone had a good laugh about the small army, no one was mad about it. Each new NPC that joined them meant more gameplay options for someone, and that kept them very invested in it all.

[Derpy]

I always like to throw my two cents into these, because it seems like I have the minority experience with a DMPC. It can be a lot of fun, but it's not for everyone. Over the past nearly a decade I've DM'd I've played a few DMPCs. The groups I've played with haven't had any major issues with them, and I think a lot of that is the style that I play them in. I keep the action focused on the players, they're the ones making the decisions, doing the epic deeds, building networking with the greats; being in the spotlight. I might as well just write a fan-fic if I was going to be center stage. My DMPC is supporting them generally. Sometimes a lucky combination of circumstances ends up propelling my DMPC to a spotlight for a session (and the few times this has happened, the players found it rare enough to be more interesting then annoying), but I'll try to stick to the things that are low key. I found a warlock works nice, just E-blast whatever, and act as an artillery strike if a member of the party calls for a fireball or something. Cleric was okay, I did my best to buff and support the players, and debuff enemies, and let the players take the spotlight. I played both those are more reserved personality characters or introverts, they had a group of friends and comrades in arms and as long as those people were fine they didn't have too much ambition. I'm trying a more gregarious character this time around, so threads like this are great to remind me of the many pitfalls to avoid. If it doesn't work I'll drop them out in some fashion and figure something else out.

Which brings me around to what, I think, makes a DMPC tolerable to enjoyable for the group. First, the players; if they're dead set against it and close minded about it, it wont work. That well is poisoned, and it'll just bring in frustration and resentment even if played well. Second, the game style; the more relaxed the game is and people are out to have fun with friends as opposed to showing up the others and competing with each other the better it will fit. It's harder to pull off with a group of strangers or people who don't want to share the spotlight, but I'm pretty thankful my groups have been kind enough to let me enjoy a PC as well (I've never been able to get into a local game that hasn't had the DM give up after at most two months, so the only way I've been able to get a long term PC is as a DMPC.). Third, the right attitude by the DM; no one is going to like the DM just building up their character as something epic that makes the party redundant. Absolute power can corrupt, and not every DM might have the mindset to sit back and let the players dig themselves into trouble or do something off the rails when they have a voice and agency so close at hand. I have a DMPC so I can interact in the same world as my friends on the same dynamic level they are interacting with each-other's characters, but I'm behind them every step of the way. Until I get turned to paste by the fight that was picked against stronger enemies.

[Spo]

I always like to throw my two cents into these, because it seems like I have the minority experience with a DMPC. … Over the past nearly a decade I've DM'd I've played a few DMPCs. … I'm pretty thankful my groups have been kind enough to let me enjoy a PC as well (I've never been able to get into a local game that hasn't had the DM give up after at most two months, so the only way I've been able to get a long term PC is as a DMPC.). .

I understand your desire to join the players in the adventures you are running them through with a character of your own, but the danger of you being influenced by the feelings of your creation is ever present. You might think that if you cross any balance line your players will speak up and express their dissatisfaction with the situation.

However, what will more likely happen is they will let things slide and not say if something irks them because ppl are not that confrontational. They will silently dislike/tolerate the DM’s pet character. “Games are tough to find and if the price for playing in this one is to accept this DMPC, I’ll pay.”

[Guy Lombard-O]

it seems like I have the minority experience with a DMPC. It can be a lot of fun, but it's not for everyone. Over the past nearly a decade I've DM'd I've played a few DMPCs. The groups I've played with haven't had any major issues with them

Real question: How would you know? Do you actively seek that information out? How do you couch the question? How often do you check in about player satisfaction with the DMPC?

I ask because I've played in games where they were involved. And I can tell you, it's a really, really hard thing to pull off. Even the same DM can sort of pull it off for a while with one character, but then go overboard with the next one and it really grates and detracts from the fun. And even if you actually directly ask the question "Is this bothering anyone?", you may not get completely honest answers...especially if it's extremely evident that you're really enjoying playing the DMPC. And even the same DMPC who didn't annoy the players initially may start to irritate after hanging around too long.

Honestly, it's just never a good idea.

Sometimes a lucky combination of circumstances ends up propelling my DMPC to a spotlight for a session (and the few times this has happened, the players found it rare enough to be more interesting then annoying)

I'm trying a more gregarious character this time around, so threads like this are great to remind me of the many pitfalls to avoid. If it doesn't work I'll drop them out in some fashion and figure something else out.

This sounds like two perfect examples of how to take a DMPC from possibly tolerable to unwelcome.

Which brings me around to what, I think, makes a DMPC tolerable to enjoyable for the group...the right attitude by the DM

Even with the right attitude, I think it's nigh-impossible to keep the DMPC from becoming (silently) unwelcome after more than 4-5 sessions. Even if they're fairly quiet, and even if they're less powerful than the PCs and a support character. Unless they stay so far in the background that they're clearly an NPC, they simply tend to become unwelcome. At least in my experience.

Note that I say this as someone who used to DM (poorly) and made this mistake myself. Luckily, I took the hint and retired the character before it torpedoed the game.

[Derpy]

I understand your desire to join the players in the adventures you are running them through with a character of your own, but the danger of you being influenced by the feelings of your creation is ever present. You might think that if you cross any balance line your players will speak up and express their dissatisfaction with the situation.

However, what will more likely happen is they will let things slide and not say if something irks them because ppl are not that confrontational. They will silently dislike/tolerate the DM’s pet character. “Games are tough to find and if the price for playing in this one is to accept this DMPC, I’ll pay.”

Some of us have been a group for longer then we've been DnDing, and they've had no hesitation to let me know other flaws I've had (and oh, I've had them; in DnD and in our other interactions), especially in the early years, but even recently. If they were sitting on that one upset it would really surprise me to a great extent, especially because they know I'll run one without if people want (I have several times). My core group would let me know, though maybe some outside of it or newer people wouldn't, no matter how much I beg them to tell me anything they think is a problem. Open communication is important and so is knowing the table when taking this sort of thing into consideration. Getting everyone's buy in and expectations session zero helps guide the IRL social aspect of the campaign as well. It's more difficult to sound out a table of unknown players, but like I said if you know the well is poisoned, avoid DMPC, some people will be resentful and untrusting even if such an event doesn't occur. If you're the DM, and willing to DM, you always know there will be other games, and eventually another chance will present itself with receptive players, so don't force it.

Edited so not double post.

Real question: How would you know? Do you actively seek that information out? How do you couch the question? How often do you check in about player satisfaction with the DMPC?

see above. Just the core group knowing each other for a long long time, mostly, and being comfortable expressing ourselves.

This sounds like two perfect examples of how to take a DMPC from possibly tolerable to unwelcome.

I'm terrified of that, and very likely to drop them for the remainder of the campaign as things stand now. It'll take next to nothing to break me mentally in this regard.

At least in my experience.

Everyone has different experiences, no two tables are the same; it's one of the things that draws so many people to the game, and makes it so versatile and enjoyable for so many people; not everything is for everyone and not everyone has to play the same way.

[dafrca]

I have been in a few games where the DM insisted on having a DMPC and in each case the rest of us have just lived with the DMPC. In each case the DMPC became more and more important to the story and the party became the support characters. Never have I seen a DMPC that was good for the game they were in.

Having said that, I did play in a game once where the GM created a NPC to help cover a skill set we lacked, after a few sessions the GM asked if anyone was willing to run the NPC as a second character until the subplot story arch was over. I said yes and over the next couple months I ran the NPC. When the time came for him to leave the party it felt right because of the way the GM played out his leaving. It was fun and the NPC fit into the party for the time needed.

As a GM I have always watched for any NPC that started to take on the DMPC feel and figured out how to eliminate them from the game. Write them off the series so to speak.

[Fable Wright]

An NPC that steals the scene is one that has the players' undivided attention.

This is either The Villain or a background character that's unusually fitting for the scene.

If it's someone who takes the players' attention hostage, it's The Villain.
If it's someone who the players begin dragging along with them because they like them, they're the lovable background character.

Forcing the 'lovable background character' into the limelight as the GM will soon turn them into The Villain. This is a known phenomenon and a reason DMPCs are fraught with danger.

[Toadkiller]

It’s fun when you have an NPC the players are eager to see again. It seems to me it is often one that was originally a throw away character that, through some sort of chemistry at the table, becomes a favorite. Even in those cases, as mentioned above, I try to keep them transitory. I’m not above having them in a fight - especially if their death can serve as a catalyst. If the big bad’s minions or trusted lieutenant kill a favorite NPC that can be quite the plot hook.

[Catullus64]

Reading all of people's experiences with DMPCs has given me a great idea for a mini-campaign. The PCs are down-on-their-luck adventurers who have been reduced to working as sidekicks for a "great hero" who's really a self-aggrandizing buffoon. They have to follow him around on quests making sure he doesn't get killed and looks like he actually vanquished the monsters or what have you. In other words, the PCs have to do the work ordinarily provided by a DMPC's Plot Armor.

Hell, they could even be hirelings to a whole party of of such glory-hounds, bailing them out when they inevitably get themselves imperiled with their terrible ideas. Each member could parody a recognizable DMPC-stereotype:

• Edgelord so the DM can show off his DPR-maxxed Hexblade/Sorcerer/Paladin whatever.
• Fun Police / Plot Rails Enforcer.
• Exposition fountain because the DM doesn't trust you to read the setting notes.
• Uncomfortable manifestation of the DM's erotic fantasies.

[dafrca]

Reading all of people's experiences with DMPCs has given me a great idea for a mini-campaign. The PCs are down-on-their-luck adventurers who have been reduced to working as sidekicks for a "great hero" who's really a self-aggrandizing buffoon. They have to follow him around on quests making sure he doesn't get killed and looks like he actually vanquished the monsters or what have you. In other words, the PCs have to do the work ordinarily provided by a DMPC's Plot Armor.

Hell, they could even be hirelings to a whole party of of such glory-hounds, bailing them out when they inevitably get themselves imperiled with their terrible ideas. Each member could parody a recognizable DMPC-stereotype:

• Edgelord so the DM can show off his DPR-maxxed Hexblade/Sorcerer/Paladin whatever.
• Fun Police / Plot Rails Enforcer.
• Exposition fountain because the DM doesn't trust you to read the setting notes.
• Uncomfortable manifestation of the DM's erotic fantasies.

I think I would take a pass on that kind of game. I have disliked being in that role so much when it happened in the past, the idea of setting myself up for it by design just does not appeal to me.

I admit though, I would be curious to hear how it does go for a party willing to play in such a game.

[Cheesegear]

My DMPCs fall into one of three characters:

Warrior:
Typically someone large and stupid. They are good at making Melee Attack Rolls, but are typically prone to making incredibly bad Wisdom saves. 'If you keep this guy around he will almost certainly be mind-controlled at some point and turn against you.' Think, 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8. He's not going to help in roleplaying situations, and he's not going to be making lore rolls. His job is literally to make combat slightly easier for you because most hostiles in the MM tend to make melee attacks.

Expert:
Int is usually a dump stat for every single player because it has no value. That being said, I often like to include an NPC with the party that can drop exposition on important backstory and plot information, because I can't trust anyone in the party to make an Int check to save themselves.

Healer:
Healing is boring. I usually tell my players straight up that the healer is afraid of combat and will not fight for you. However, when combat is over, the 'healer' is totally willing to burn some spell slots so that you don't have to short rest.

Clearly, the role of any DMPC should be to shore up a main weakness in the party. I usually just take a statblock and run with that, or refluff it if I really have to. That 'Crazy Warrior' that the party has been hanging out with? If any player looks really closely, the reason he can Bonus Action Dash is because he actually has the statblock of an Orc.

Tasha's Sidekick rules, of course, has changed this entirely and now I just use those.

[Witty Username]

Thankfully I am good at getting my NPCs killed so any spotlight stealing they do is brief or end abruptly.