[3.5] Dmpc

[mikej]

I need a view opinions on a rather deadlocked discussion with a fellow gamer, are all DMPCs inherently bad ?

We're playing in a Ebberon campaign and one of the DMs past character appears to be a NPC. It being a Naztharune Rakashasa with a few levels of Assassin that owns very large chunk of Sharn, It also has the following Artifacts - Sword of Kas, Hammer of Thunderbolts, Staff of the Magi...and a Dragon Orb for each color Dragon. Has a team of some retarded high NPCs including the spiritual leader of the Silver Flame ( ohh that I found weird since I'm a huge fan of Ebberon...he is a Rakashasa)

It also has in past sessions tag alone with us only to ask for gp to take care big monsters which we couldn't handle. From what I seen soo for I can safely assume we need to actually face such DMPC later on.

Now the argument is that I find this just not needed, I shouldn't have my previous PCs come back and use DM authority/resources to gear it with stuff that PC wouldn't even imagine getting in real game sessions. This DMPC truly has no positive purpose other to enlarge someones ego in my opinion. The counter argument made by my friend is that the Naztharune Rakashasa is merely a plot device, It never joins our group long to make it a real DMPC. Now we do showbout a little with our PCs and I see this just being " you fail..my Rakashasa kicked your [insert whatever ] PCs butt ".

[Oracle_Hunter]

Anything walking around with that many Artifacts that does nothing aside from "tag along" periodically is a DMPC of the worst variety. To be a "plot device" it would actually have to, y'know, provide a plot. The technical term for a random power that rescues you from time to time is a Deus Ex Machina.

Remember: Friends don't let friends run DMPCs

[arguskos]

I've always felt that DMPC's can, properly handled and used as a plot device, not as a "be awesome" device, enhance games and further plot.

However, that Rakshasa seems to exist to "be awesome" at the expense of the players, which isn't a good way to go. I'd ask your DM why he feels the need to have a super-awesome-powerful guy following the PCs around, and could he please do something to make it go away. Failing that... find a way to escape it.

[huttj509]

It can be done well. It can also be screwed up easily.

If, say, the prior PC had made some achievment in the prior campaign, or pulled some betrayal, and the position they now hold could be an extension of their progress (say, if for their betrayal they gained the authority to commandeer all those artifacts), having them be a well done central figure makes sense. It's an NPC you already know a lot about.

I've never been a fan of the Deus Ex Machina moments that DMPCs tend to lead to. Even if the plot works with you being overpowered then someone comes to save you, and you now owe them, it feels a bit too scripted. If done well, it can work, if done poorly...well...

[vegetalss4]

i don't want to jugde all dmpcs everywhere however That Dmpc is just a big ego trip, and quite frankly i belives that it ruins the setting, and from you it sounds like it ruins the game too.


i mean Kas doesen't even exist in eberron, and the dragons are really powerful, having those orbs is the kind of thing that gets your inteire concinent destroyed. Completely [/rant]

[AmberVael]

As long as the emphasis and spotlight remain on the PCs, it should be okay (at least, I can't think of anything else that should really be bad). There isn't anything wrong with a DMPC being cool or useful, but the focus and heroes of the game should be the PCs.

The example DMPC, however, seems to be just a wee bit overshadowing.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Meh, I feel like DMPCs are liked a loaded gun in the hands of the DM - it's so tempting to use it, but it always ends poorly. At best, a DMPC fills a gap in a small party (like, being the cleric/Leader) and does nothing aside from filling its role.

Of course, "DMPC" like every other term, needs definition. I define DMPC to be a NPC that is run by the DM as if ey were eirs own PC. This means that the DMPC must accompany the party on adventures, fight and loot for XP/glory, and has little reason to actually hang out with the other PCs.

Now, a NPC that accompanies the party is OK. This can be as a companion or hireling (subservient or barely equal with the PCs), a temporary ally (someone on a particular quest who needs help), or a plot device (someone to protect, a spy, etc.). These are fine because they are either tied directly into a particular plot and/or are explicitly subservient to the PCs to some extent.

[FoE]

Let me get this straight: this Rakhasa with artifacts spilling out of his ass (artifacts which, I'll note, don't really belong in Eberron) is following your party around so he can beg for a few coins whenever you're facing really tough monsters? And he inexplicably has the leader of the Church of the Silver Flame tagging along?

Worst. DMPC. Ever.

Smack your DM and tell him to retroactively remove that loser from your campaign.

[Ponce]

I'm ok with a DMPC as a sort of "the DM wants to have fun too" type of thing. As long as the DMPC follows the same character creation rules as everyone else, it is usually fine, and as long as the DMPC doesn't have a personality that would cause it to dominate or control party actions.

An actual NPC that hangs around the party in the manner you describe is just obnoxious though. Worse than Gandalf!

[PurinaDragonCho]

I'm running a campaign right now, and the group initially consisted of a Mystic, a Druid, a Bard and a Rogue. The way the characters were built, they really didn't have a meatshield. So I made an NPC Fighter to travel with them until they got a little beefier, so they could survive in the beginning. And although he was based on a character I used to play, he doesn't play too smart. He just charges into battle. The fighter got killed on Halloween (I did a cheesy dream sequence horror one-shot). I was going to just leave it at that, because the group had gotten up to 3rd level, but they started trying to figure out how they were going to raise money to get him rezzed. So I had a high-level NPC bring him back.

In other words, my group is happy to have this guy along, and I don't think he overshadows anyone. He will become unnecessary pretty soon though - the rogue is going to go barbarian from here on out.

[Breaw]

On the DMPC the OP mentioned: That is totally out of line, a blatant ego trip, and destructive towards the campaign. It's a player glorifying a previous character of his and giving him all the cool toys he wants, since he's now calling the shots.

On DMPCs in general: I was about to say that I hadn't encountered DMPCs personally, but then I had to correct myself. My DM has introduced 2 characters that I would consider DMPCs, both of which were done quite effectively if you ask me.

Example 1: His old Wizard from an old campaign. This guy has mostly gone nuts. Not interested in casting magic anymore (fireballed 1 too many buildings full of people...), a bit twitchy. He has a great deal of knowledge and a great deal of potential power, which he more or less never uses. His two daughters and wife play a bigger role in the plot most of the time than he does. Most of us are just waiting to see what he does when that last thread holding him together snaps...

Example 2: Arrogant, egocentric, powerful Wizard. We have been sent on a few missions to assist him in matters of great peril. We wouldn't have been able to save the day by ourselves, but still played a significant roll in the events that passed. We've saved his bacon once when he got overconfident, got drugged, and captured by another powerful wizard (we bargained for him back). Anyway, if push came to shove he'd blow us to smitherines, but he's never swooshed in to save the day...

Perhaps these are borderline DMPCs, since while Example 1 is an old PC that is more or less played as an NPC. Example 2 is a DMPC that is pulled out before the mission starts, so we know what we're getting into, and could choose not to help him if so inclined. I guess that's the distinction, I get the impression that when we choose to, we help him... not the other way around.

Anyway, high level NPCs solving problems for adventurers is totally fair game in my books. I'm in a thievery campaign atm in which I am playing a character built very much like a beguiler. The last two missions have been ultimately resolved by us doing favors for high powered Wizards, and convincing them that it is in their best interest to do our mission for us. This is turning into rambling, so I'm going to spoiler the two stories here so that you don't feel guilty about skipping over them.

Spoiler

Show

Story 1: There was a war between thieves guilds. We had been betrayed by a guild member, who was giving the enemy guild our locations. Just as we figured out who was behind all of this, the traitor tried to screw us over one last time... There was reason to believe that the daughter of two very powerful wizards was behind some of the attacks. This was a red herring, but we considered it a possibility none the less. The traitor, disguised as one of us, captured the daughter and pulled out her tongue so she couldn't cast spells. We got to her too late, but before anyone else found her. I convinced the girls mother to not obliterate us on sight, and swore that this was a frame job. Provided a name and hair from the assailant. She took care of the rest.

Story 2: We were looking for a stolen item. It had been stolen from our client by a group of evil clerics. These guys were really well hidden, as they lived in a city run by a 12th level wizard with no patience for pretty much anything. We uncovered a plot to steal some items from the Wizard, one of these evil clerics was somewhat involved. There is no way they were gonna get away with it long term, but we caught them just after the fact and gave them up to the Wizard. Along with the reward he gave us (shiny new spells), he gave us the stolen item when he came across it as he routed out the rest of the clerics in the city. (Torturing works on pretty much everyone eventually)

Anyway, 2 situations not of DMPC, but of high powered NPCs being a solution to the problem at hand. (emphasis mine) These sorts of things are fine so long as they are options, not the only option...

[JBento]

How to deal with the Rakshasa DMPC:

Next time it asks you for money to deal with a monster you can't handle, say no.

Then watch the DM's face contort in anguish as he tries to decide if he should kill you all with his overpowered monster (which you don't care about, since you're not having fun in the campaign already), or make the DMPC intervene anyway (which, though not solving the problem, at least precludes you from having to PAY for not having fun).

[Tsotha-lanti]

Worst. DMPC. Ever.

The only way I can conceive of for this DMPC to be worse would be if it was constantly having sex (described in graphic detail) with a thin analogue to a real person the DM has a crush on.

... who also happens to be in the group.

Oh, and maybe if the DMPC had another tag-along character who is a thin analogue of a real person the DM hates, who the DMPC constantly abuses.

I need a view opinions on a rather deadlocked discussion with a fellow gamer, are all DMPCs inherently bad ?

We're playing in a Ebberon campaign and one of the DMs past character appears to be a NPC. It being a Naztharune Rakashasa with a few levels of Assassin that owns very large chunk of Sharn, It also has the following Artifacts - Sword of Kas, Hammer of Thunderbolts, Staff of the Magi...and a Dragon Orb for each color Dragon. Has a team of some retarded high NPCs including the spiritual leader of the Silver Flame ( ohh that I found weird since I'm a huge fan of Ebberon...he is a Rakashasa)

It also has in past sessions tag alone with us only to ask for gp to take care big monsters which we couldn't handle. From what I seen soo for I can safely assume we need to actually face such DMPC later on.

Now the argument is that I find this just not needed, I shouldn't have my previous PCs come back and use DM authority/resources to gear it with stuff that PC wouldn't even imagine getting in real game sessions. This DMPC truly has no positive purpose other to enlarge someones ego in my opinion. The counter argument made by my friend is that the Naztharune Rakashasa is merely a plot device, It never joins our group long to make it a real DMPC. Now we do showbout a little with our PCs and I see this just being " you fail..my Rakashasa kicked your [insert whatever ] PCs butt ".

Whether all DMPCs are inherently bad (which they are; "DMPC" does not mean "NPC", it specifically means "DM avatar"/"NPC with significant emotional investment by the DM", which means it is by definition negative and undesirable) is irrelevant in your case, really. It's clear that this Rakshasa is a DMPC is the most heinous kind, the DM's little pet character Mary Sue around which he twists the entire campaign setting in contrived and illogical ways, and which he uses to upstage and humiliate you.

Switch DMs or suffer through the BS for an indeterminate (possibly infinite) amount of time.

I've always felt that DMPC's can, properly handled and used as a plot device, not as a "be awesome" device, enhance games and further plot.

NPCs have all the good sides and none of the bad sides of DMPCs, being that "DMPC" means "NPC with added baggage that will always be to the detriment of the game". Why would a DMPC ever be better than a NPC?

An ex-PC that has become a NPC is not a DMPC. They're an NPC, just like an ex-PC of a player's would be. (However, ex-PCs of DMs are almost always DMPCs, or just egotripping-NPCs, and should therefore be discouraged, too.)

I'm ok with a DMPC as a sort of "the DM wants to have fun too" type of thing.

How is it even possible for the DM to have fun playing a PC in his or her own game? That sounds about as entertaining as playing chess against yourself. The DM already has thousands of characters to portray.

[kjones]

How to deal with the Rakshasa DMPC:

Next time it asks you for money to deal with a monster you can't handle, say no.

Then watch the DM's face contort in anguish as he tries to decide if he should kill you all with his overpowered monster (which you don't care about, since you're not having fun in the campaign already), or make the DMPC intervene anyway (which, though not solving the problem, at least precludes you from having to PAY for not having fun).

This. Ask yourself the basic question: Why is this guy hanging around with you? Try to figure out the answer in-game. Once the DM realizes that there isn't one, maybe he'll let it go.

[BRC]

DMPC's are like Peglegs. Awkward, filling in for somthing that should be there, and preferably not there. This isn't to say that they are inheriently bad, it's just that it's usually better to have a PC. DMPC's should fill in roles that none of the PC's want to fill yet would be neccessary for the campaign like a healer or tank. DMPC's shouldn't overshadow the PC's, and unless the group and the DM are all skilled roleplayers. They probably shouldn't talk much lest the Players asssociate their plans and advice as coming from the DM directly.
You should never, under any circumstances, have a DMPC wizard unless you let the players pick his spells. You will probably end up A) Intentionally gimping his spells, or preparing spells for what you have planned. It will be hard to avoid this.

Generally, whaen I do have a DMPC, I let a player control them.

[Yukitsu]

Slieght of hand all the artifacts, and contingent teleport away when they notice they are missing. Having a situation like that is just asking to give these items away to the party.

[Tsotha-lanti]

DMPC's should fill in roles that none of the PC's want to fill yet would be neccessary for the campaign like a healer or tank.

No, NPCs and cohorts should do that, if the roles are absolutely necessary.

[arguskos]

NPCs have all the good sides and none of the bad sides of DMPCs, being that "DMPC" means "NPC with added baggage that will always be to the detriment of the game". Why would a DMPC ever be better than a NPC?

An ex-PC that has become a NPC is not a DMPC. They're an NPC, just like an ex-PC of a player's would be. (However, ex-PCs of DMs are almost always DMPCs, or just egotripping-NPCs, and should therefore be discouraged, too.)

See, you defined DMPC as "NPC with significant emotional investment by the DM" which is NOT a bad thing. It only is when the DM grows more attached to his NPC than to his game, which is where DMPC's turn evil.

Frankly, I treat them like this:

This isn't to say that they are inheriently bad, it's just that it's usually better to have a PC. DMPC's should fill in roles that none of the PC's want to fill yet would be neccessary for the campaign like a healer or tank. DMPC's shouldn't overshadow the PC's, and unless the group and the DM are all skilled roleplayers. They probably shouldn't talk much lest the Players asssociate their plans and advice as coming from the DM directly.

DMPC's serve a vital role in D&D: evening out the holes. Do they HAVE to exist? No, not really. Can they be fun, rewarding, a good time? Yes, absolutely. Hell, I had a DMPC cleric in my last campaign. My players LOVED that guy. When he died (got reamed by a string of nat 20s), my players begged me to bring him back. I didn't, since I reasoned that, since the resurrection rules in my world were pretty strict (ie. there isn't any resurrection), and I didn't want to place him above the players, I chose to let the poor cleric die. He had a nice burial ceremony, and we moved on.

DMPC=/=Mary Sue all the time guys. Sometimes, they are nice and handy for roleplaying outlets ( since I only DM these days and never play [no games], I want to rp something other than shopkeeps, bad guys, and monsters gorramit!), party balance, random fun, and other happy things.

If you've been soured on bad DMPC's, then you have my sympathies. It's taken me YEARS to get the hang of one my players like, but once I did, I found the game experience for all was much improved.

No, NPCs and cohorts should do that, if the roles are absolutely necessary.

An NPC that follows the players around healing them is, by definition, a DMPC, since it is a character, being played by someone that isn't the players, and thus must be the DM. It is a DM's character, and it is not some great evil.

[valadil]

In my experience, DMPCs are good when the party invites them into the group rather when the DM inserts them into the group.

[Darkxarth]

I ran a game over the summer, in which none of the players chose to player either an arcanist or an urban skill-monkey. There was an Elven Ranger, a Dwarven Cleric, a Human Knight, and a Human Monk. I decided that they should have at least some arcane power and basic urban skills, so I made a Halfling Beguiler. He was one level lower than the PCs, and although he gained XP like they did, I did not actually subtract any from their totals. The character was surly, vaguely obnoxious, a little cowardly, and did not really like the PCs. He was only in it for the money, and continually threatened to steal their stuff while they slept and abandon them. Needless to say, he never did any such thing, and, in fact, all of my players really liked having him in the party. Not only did he let them implement sneakier plans than they might otherwise have been able to, but because of the character's personality, he was never overshadowing in combat or in roleplaying and only helped augment the PCs own style. (In combat he used illusions & anti-buffs, and in roleplaying scenarios he sat in the corner and stayed out of the conversation until payment was mentioned.) Towards the end of the campaign, the party lineup switched a little and grew: Elven Ranger, Dwarven Cleric, Dwarven Paladin, Human Monk, Human Barbarian, & Elf Druid. Had anyone decided to play a Wizard or a Rogue (or a Beguiler), my DMPC would have made a quick exit and allowed said PC to take over his former role.

Not that I didn't once run a stupid DMPC that, while no one has ever said anything about it, I feel overshadowed the PCs and was detrimental to gameplay.

In my current campaign, the players are well-balanced enough (and numerous enough) to not require any sort of DMPC.

[sleepy]

It's certainly an inherently awkward convention.

My gitp pbp has one right now... didn't start with one, but as I'm the last remaining player, my final companion to withdraw had her character commandeered by the DM. He's mainly serving as an extra body in combat, which I don't mind at all, and I did give the DM explicit permission to use him as a cluebat/railroading device (I'm playing a LE character in a plot that is obviously supposed to be carried by Good motivations, and when it was just the two of us one of the other PC's major roles was to bite the plot hook).

Mechanically and storyline-wise I appreciate his presence, but I do admit he's a little difficult to roleplay with. My DM's making a big effort not to take the lead with him, and I've been avoiding discussing plans/strategy or plot mysteries with him as it feels like asking for help out of character, so consequently, he only seems to speak up as an explicit nudge and never handles conversations with NPCs (which he's often more suited for).

Out of character my understanding is enough stuff was statted out in advance that going from 2 to 1 PCs would stall the plot out, but I won't be terribly upset if more recent developements assume his dramatic exit and we proceed without the tagalong with whom every conversation feels fraught with metagame considerations.

[JadedDM]

An NPC that follows the players around healing them is, by definition, a DMPC, since it is a character, being played by someone that isn't the players, and thus must be the DM. It is a DM's character, and it is not some great evil.

No, that's just an NPC. "DMPC" is a specific, derogatory term (like 'munchkin;' there is no such thing as a good muchkin) that refers to a character the DM is using because he wants to 'play as well' because he/she fails to realize that DMs do play, just in a different way than players.

If the character is forced on the group, is stronger or just better than them, tries to keep them on the rails, and more or less exists to stroke the DM's ego, then it's a DMPC.

If the DM rolls a cleric because nobody else wants to be the healer, and all he does is stay in the background and heal whoever gets hurt, it's just an NPC.

(I mean, by your definition, ALL NPCs are DMPCs, because the DM plays every NPC in the setting, from the main villain to the local innkeeper's daughter.)

[BRC]

No, that's just an NPC. "DMPC" is a specific, derogatory term (like 'munchkin;' there is no such thing as a good muchkin) that refers to a character the DM is using because he wants to 'play as well' because he/she fails to realize that DMs do play, just in a different way than players.

If the character is forced on the group, is stronger or just better than them, tries to keep them on the rails, and more or less exists to stroke the DM's ego, then it's a DMPC.

If the DM rolls a cleric because nobody else wants to be the healer, and all he does is stay in the background and heal whoever gets hurt, it's just an NPC.

(I mean, by your definition, ALL NPCs are DMPCs, because the DM plays every NPC in the setting, from the main villain to the local innkeeper's daughter.)

No, DMPC stands for Dungeon Master Player Character. That is, a Character that is essentially a PC, except in that it is controlled by the DM.

Even if you disagree with this definition, I'm pretty sure it's what everybody else is meaning when they say "DMPC".

[AslanCross]

I once ran a DMPC in my current campaign, but that was to hold the fort for a character whose player quit due to academic reasons. As much as possible I let an actual player handle her, but there were times when this was too distracting.

I didn't want to keep this character forever, so I didn't let her get any treasure and kept her around long enough for the paladin to regret her (scripted) death at the hands of the BBEG's right hand lady.

[arguskos]

No, that's just an NPC. "DMPC" is a specific, derogatory term (like 'munchkin;' there is no such thing as a good muchkin) that refers to a character the DM is using because he wants to 'play as well' because he/she fails to realize that DMs do play, just in a different way than players.

If the character is forced on the group, is stronger or just better than them, tries to keep them on the rails, and more or less exists to stroke the DM's ego, then it's a DMPC.

If the DM rolls a cleric because nobody else wants to be the healer, and all he does is stay in the background and heal whoever gets hurt, it's just an NPC.

(I mean, by your definition, ALL NPCs are DMPCs, because the DM plays every NPC in the setting, from the main villain to the local innkeeper's daughter.)

I differentiate between DMPC and NPC the following way:

NPC's are your average individual, the barkeep, the storekeep, whatever. DMPC's are NPC's the DM has put some real effort into, and made into an actually deep character that the PC's interact with in a meaningful way.

I can have an interesting NPC barkeep, but the barkeep that was an adventurer, and the players convince to come with to relive his old glory days, that's a DMPC in my opinion.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point though.

[Ponce]

How is it even possible for the DM to have fun playing a PC in his or her own game? That sounds about as entertaining as playing chess against yourself. The DM already has thousands of characters to portray.

Interacting with the other PCs? The DMPC is a member of the party, those thousands of other characters are not. Developing your character in a campaign is obviously going to be less exciting if it is your own campaign as well, but the DM isn't the only one at the table. Sometimes it is nice to walk among the peasants between bouts of supreme arbitration over the world they live in. Tyrannical bouts.

[shaddy_24]

I've got an NPC that's following the party around. The group lacks a good rogue (all they've got is a rogue 1/wizard 4), so I've got him to help the other player out with disable device and open lock checks. He's the same level as most of the party (one person's a level behind everyone else) and a funny character, and the players love having him along. I've suggested removing him before and they've always told me to keep him in. As long as they're having fun with him around, he's going to stay. If they ever get tired of him, I'll pull him out quickly.

[Person_Man]

DM PC's are inherently bad. My evidence:

1) Any "hole" in the party (usually healing or certain "must have" Skills) can easily be filled with wands and/or potions.

2) Every second that a DM or DM PC is doing something is a second that a PC is not doing something. This gives PCs less time to play the game. DMs already get tons of opportunity to enjoy combat (they control all the enemies) and roleplaying (they control all the NPCs). The PCs already have to compete for and/or share the spot light with each other. They don't need one additional person to compete/share with.

3) The potential to destroy the game with a DM PC is easy. DMs have complete plot knowledge, so metagaming abuse is even easier then normal. And newer players have a hard time separating the DM as a player from the DM as the DM, which makes the roleplaying dynamic of the group change in bad ways. Conversely, there is nothing that the DM can add to the game that couldn't be done by just letting the players have more time for their characters.

4) In my 18 years of gaming, I've seen DM PCs ruin a few groups. I've never said to myself, "Thank the gods we had one more PC, because I was really feeling too overwhelmed with having to overcome the encounters with just the X of us."

[Xenogears]

In every campaign ive ever played in the DM also has a PC. This was partly because the largest gaming group consisted of three people including the DM. It has never been a problem. To be honest 75% of the time my characters overshadowed the DM's characters. Most of the campaigns were less plot reliant though so maybe thats why. Either way DMing seems kinda boring without a DMPC. So you get to spend countless hours designing the world and then sit back and watch 90% of the time occasionally coming back to throw a couple die for a fight or run a conversation?

[Kami2awa]

It also has the following Artifacts - Sword of Kas, Hammer of Thunderbolts, Staff of the Magi...and a Dragon Orb for each color Dragon.

For the first time, I can't say any more than

ZOMG! WTF!?