# Explain why DMPCs are bad to me.



## Goddess FallenAngel (Nov 14, 2006)

I've seen a lot of comments along the lines of "DMPCs suck!" and "I hate DMPCs with a passion!".

I don't get it. Why are they so bad? Am I the only person on the planet that doesn't mind DMPCs?

I've had brushes with a few bad ones occasionally, I admit. But the DM I usually game with has had a DMPC in just about every campaign I have been in except the few most recent... and I don't see the problem. 

He usually only brings in a DMPC to cover an area we as PCs don't have covered, like when there were 2 of us, and neither of us a cleric, or when we needed information on a particular city, and we located an ex-resident, who we then had tag along (I want to point out, the DM didn't require us to take him along, the PCs decided to drag him along).

To sum up, the only bad experiences I have had with DMPCs were in games with (what I consider to be) bad DMs.

I know this topic has probably been gone over before, feel free to point me towards the older threads if you have links.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 14, 2006)

THe main reasons is DMPCs can steal the players thunder.  They are easier for the DM to plot around and easier for the DM to make better then the PCs.  

I do agree that a DMPC can be done well and have seen it.  But I know more often DM's screw it up.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 14, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> THe main reasons is DMPCs can steal the players thunder.  They are easier for the DM to plot around and easier for the DM to make better then the PCs.




Yup.  Too often, the DMPC winds up being the star of the show, and *that's* what makes them bad.


----------



## Psion (Nov 14, 2006)

DMPC's aren't universally bad.

But I do believe that their use is easily abused by neophyte GMs.

What is comes down to is that you, as the GM, have onmiscience and omnipotence when it comes to empowering any NPC. If you identify a character as "your own", you can marginalize the rest of the players as your pet hero saves the day using its inside line to the brain of the creator of the universe. It's difficult for those with the wrong temperament (for some, experience is not a factor) to act as an impartial judge in this situation.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Nov 14, 2006)

I've run a DMPC a few times to make up for not having enough players for a decent game.  In general, though, I don't like it.

Too many times, a DMPC ends up being the center of attention, taking that attention away from the stars of the show, the PCs.  

When I do DMPC, I try to keep them low-key and in the background.   Even then, though, the PCs tend to look to the DMPCs for guidance.

It can be done..I've done it successfully..but for the most part, it does suck for the players.


----------



## Gothmog (Nov 14, 2006)

I've seen very good DMPCs and horrible ones.  In general I like the idea though, as long as its done fairly.

Bad DMPCs steal everyone else's thunder, are ultra-cool, pull off things no other PC could, and in general are annoying buttheads.  Bad DMs use them to live out childish power fantasies, and will not tolerate anyone going against the DMPC.  I've seen four like this in the 22 years I've been gaming, and they were intolerable.  You either have to leave the game, or just grit your teeth and bear it, because there is no way to be rid of them.

Good DMPCs are there to fill a role the party is usually missing.  They are not given preferential treatment, items, or consideration, and suffer the same breaks the PCs do.  It is important to keep the DMPC low-key though.  They can be invaluable for helping to direct the plot, or suggest ideas if the PCs are struggling, and when roleplayed well, gain distinct personalities of their own.  Maybe I've been lucky with the DMPCs I've run into, but in general the DMs I've played with have been mature, well-adjusted people who have no need to compensate or lord power over others.  Done well, a DMPC adds a lot to a game.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 14, 2006)

I run a DMPC when the group is on the smallish side (only 3 players). I never let my DMPC take the spotlight...or at least, very rarely will it take the spotlight, sometimes it just works out that way. 

I don't let me DMPC break the rules. I make sure it's a class, race and personality that compliments the players and I quietly contribute without taking up too many player resources and without contributing so much that I trivialize encounters. 

It's a tough balance, and I had problems with it maybe 15 years ago, but it's worked for me for quite awhile now. Of course, like I said, it's a tool that I only employee if the group is small enough that the extra player is a benefit.


----------



## Ian Demagi (Nov 14, 2006)

*Dmpc*

In 3rd Ed, Why have a DMPC when there are well delveloped co-hort rules? If you are missing something important from a party, spend a feat and take leadership. DMPC's take the spotlight from the players. Ian.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 14, 2006)

DMPCs are just NPCs who happen to be part of the PCs adventuring group.

Don't treat them as special, no more than any other NPC, and don't make them an extension of the DM. Give them a well developed personality, but don't make them a Mary Sue for yourself.

And yes, n00b DMs should avoid them like the plague because if done poorly they'll make players fear any type of DMPC from then on. When they're bad, they're really bad. But in the hands of an experienced DM who knows his group and who knows what -not- to do, they're invaluable, and frankly a standard part of the game in many cases.


----------



## Brimshack (Nov 14, 2006)

I've always used DM PCs, as have the players I learned the game from back in the early 80s. I remember games in which the DM PC was the center of the action and everyone played along. I hated it, and I wouldn't put up with it now. But that same thing can be done with offcial NPCs. 

I've often seen DMs become so attached to specific NPCs that over the course of a few games the NPC becomes a virtual PC for the party. The NPC that was along for the ride or just there to help us through a tough spot ends up becoming a central force in the party. What then separates it from a regular player character is that it isn't subject to the character generating rules that the rest of us used. Hence, the NPC hero is often several levels higher than the party and much better outfitted. It knows more about everything that counts because the DM has already decided it does and he has know shame in running the character as brighter than the rest of th group. It clearly dominates the campaign much more so than a a regular PC would have. I have never felt like a tag-along from PCs half as much as I have from one of these unplanned bonding experiences when a DM decides to just keep playing the bad-ass NPC over and over until the only thing that separates him from a PC is all the extra power and foresight he gets for being a pawn of the DM.

The problem emerges often enough that I'd rather just deal with it up front myself. I'm playing a PC or two, just like my players. I like playing PCs and I want a chance to develop a character just like the other players, so I'm going to. Selfish, I know, but being up front about it, I can control the matter a bit more. My character(s) will be rolled up using the same rules as the other players, and so it will be comparable to their characters without being overpowering. 

That said, there are a couple extra rules that we usually apply to DM characters: They don't take point, they don't act as leaders, and they don't make or contribute to strategic decisions. The DMs character will not solve puzzles and it will not be the first to try a problem solving tactic. If other characters want specific actions from my own PCs they are encouraged to shout instructions and/or suggestions. I usually draw my characters up with that in mind, making them a little bit aloof and/or subserviant. Or I just make them querky enough that no-one will want to consider their judgement on real decisions. I also tend to design them as support characters (Cleric's, Druids, etc. or for that matter the meat shield whose stated purpose is to keep the Mage alive).

One additional problem which can arise with DM PCs is that if your players come and go a lot, you may end up with a level advantage or 2. That's because you are always there while your players miss a game every now and then. You can account for this in a variety of ways, but the main thing is just to keep it in mind and take steps to correct it when necessary.

DM bias in favor of a character is a problem. The temptation to spare your favorite character is there, but it occurs with other players' characters as well. In the end, I suspect I overcompensate a bit, thumping my own characters more than those of other players. I tend to lose my own characters a bit faster than the other players, and I think I've seen comparable problems with the other DMs playing PCs in my area.


----------



## tzor (Nov 14, 2006)

I'll start out by saying that I've been playing since 1st edition, so my comments might be a little out of sync with the younger gaming community.  I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out exactly what a DMPC is ... I've heard different definitions and the one you use is important to how significant any objections on my part are.

First of all, I have no problems with a DM throwing in an NPC or two to fill out a party.  Back in 1E when party sizes were 6 to 8 this was an accepted practice.  The NPC party filler serves an important niche and he or she completes a party.  However while they may be important members of the party the are not the PCS.

In the end, it's not the NPCS or the PCS that are "important."  The player's themselves are important. Each player has a PC.  The PCS form a party.  The NPCS that fill out the party are a part of the party but as a whole the whole party belongs to the players as a whole.  Thus while there should be DM cooperation to ensure that the NPCS as filler are not abused, (alas poor Fr. Cleric the Holy Healing Machine) the actions of the NPC fillers should come from the players as a collective whole, not from the personal desires of the DM.  They should complement the party, not the DM'S plot deivces or desires to be a player and a DM.

That in a nutshel explains my objections to the term DMPC.  "DM" as in run by the DM:  Good for NPCS in general because they exist to advance the DMS plot, but NPC filler characters should advance the party as a whole.  "PC" in that the center of attention should be on the player's characters.  Everyone else, including the party fillers are secondary characters.

Leadership etc also falls under this mantra.  You don't want player abuse of NPC characters but at the same time you don't want the game to be significantly DM characters against DM characters.  You want the players to be active as much as possible, directly controlling their own characters and indirectly by the supporting party characters.  The game is really about the interaction between DM and players, and DMPCS breaks this interaction.  That's why I don't like the term DMPC.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 14, 2006)

Filling a hole when your number of players is low could be a DMPC, but probably it's just an NPC there to fill the gaps.  See, the problem for me is right in the name.  Some equate NPC and DMPC.  I do not.

An NPC is a *non-player character*
A DMPC is a *Dungeon Master's Player Character*

For players, their characters should _be_ their world.  For DMs, the _world_ is their world.  How could you devote the proper amount of attention to running a game if your focus is split?  Just as importantly, how could you avoid using this character as anything more than a crutch and spotlight stealer?

If it's a quiet character that fills some holes and provides a personality, it's an NPC.  If it's doing much more than that, I'd tread carefully.


----------



## Psion (Nov 14, 2006)

tzor said:
			
		

> I'll start out by saying that I've been playing since 1st edition, so my comments might be a little out of sync with the younger gaming community.




Polls of ENWorld in the past have show that you are not a minority here in the least bit.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 14, 2006)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Filling a hole when your number of players is low could be a DMPC, but probably it's just an NPC there to fill the gaps.  See, the problem for me is right in the name.  Some equate NPC and DMPC.  I do not.
> 
> An NPC is a *non-player character*
> A DMPC is a *Dungeon Master's Player Character*
> ...




I guess it's just semantics. I would consider a DMPC to be a type of NPC. We first started using DMPCs because we'd have 3-4 of us who took turns DMing, all in the same world with the same characters. 

Your DMPC kind of took more of a background role, but continued developing, gaining stuff, etc. Then, when someone else took over running, your PC would move back into the spotlight and the next DMs PC would move to the background a bit. 

We were careful not to favor our own PCs, because if we did, the other DMs could just pull the same stunt...or, if bad enough, just kill off your PC when they ran. 

Now, that's pretty rare these days it seems, but there is still a place at the table for a well run DMPC. Also, I multi-task really well, so I have never felt like playing a DMPC has detracted from the attention I give to my game.


----------



## iwatt (Nov 14, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I guess it's just semantics.




Well that is usally the case in these discussions. whenerver someones says OMG XYZ SUXXORS!!!, half of the problem is what some people interpret as XYZ. See discussions about munchkin, powergamer, min-maxer, etc... 

In this case I believe that when people rant against DMPCs, they're ranting at the DM's pet NPC who travels with the PCs. You know, when you are a group of low level halflings and you're accompanied in a quest by a Level 20 half-celestial wizard run by the DM.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 14, 2006)

iwatt said:
			
		

> In this case I believe that when people rant against DMPCs, they're ranting at the DM's pet NPC who travels with the PCs. You know, when you are a group of low level halflings and you're accompanied in a quest by a Level 20 half-celestial wizard run by the DM.




Oh, and don't forget...she's got a 24 Charisma.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 14, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I guess it's just semantics.




Yeah, basically.  I just think the definitions are useful because in my mind they're different things.  An NPC doesn't belong to anyone; it's just a part of the world.  A DMPC implies possession, specifically the DM's.  I think that's where the problems come from.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> Your DMPC kind of took more of a background role, but continued developing, gaining stuff, etc. Then, when someone else took over running, your PC would move back into the spotlight and the next DMs PC would move to the background a bit.
> 
> We were careful not to favor our own PCs, because if we did, the other DMs could just pull the same stunt...or, if bad enough, just kill off your PC when they ran.




Obviously I'd have to see how it worked in practice but the way you describe it, sounds like your PCs temporarily became NPCs.  Even though they were all PCs at some point, when your turn came to DM you didn't run them as such.

This actually reminds me of a really cool campaign I always wanted to try.  Basically, everyone got to make a high-level character and a minor mini-plane.  The plane the party went to would determine the DM for the duration (e.g., Party went to Player A's mini-plane, Player A becomes DM A, etc.).  The player's PC would become an NPC, stick around with the party, be helpful in a fight, provide some background information about the plane, but not much else.  I always thought that would be great fun.  Maybe I'll get to try it one day.


----------



## Psion (Nov 14, 2006)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Oh, and don't forget...she's got a 24 Charisma.




I'm wondering if you are weird or if I am the only one who caught the allusion to Gandalf.


----------



## iwatt (Nov 14, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if you are weird or if I am the only one who caught the allusion to Gandalf.




Maybe Mithrandir was actually a cross-dresser and the high charisma helps with the disguise checks?


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 14, 2006)

Reading this thread makes it seem like D&D Players are just a bunch of whiney children or there really are a lot of BAAAAAAAD DM's out there. 

I've been playing and DMing since the early 80's and almost every DM that I've played under has had NPC's as part of the party. I've never had to deal with a scene stealing NPC, or maybe some of the stuff that people consider scene stealing is stuff that I dont. 

If the NPC makes him/herself useful during the game and encounters: NOT SCENE STEALING. 

If the NPC has Knowledge that can help the PC's or steer the PC's in the right direction: NOT SCENE STEALING. 

If the NPC is constantly saving the PC's bacon while the PC's are seeming ineffective: SCENE STEALING. 

If the NPC is better at EVERYTHING than the PC's are: SCENE STEALING. 

I've added NPC's to party's before to fill out the ranks. But you know what they can die just as easily as everyone else. I've run NPC's that the PC's grew to eventually like and trust and then had them killed off and had the players really effected by it. So I do think that there's room for the NPC that's part of the group honestly I think it really just depennds on the DM. If the Players are hating just for hate's sake then that's a problem with the player not the DM and the DM shouldnt feel obliged to cater to that/those Player(s).


----------



## Goddess FallenAngel (Nov 14, 2006)

What I always took the ranting as is "I am playing with a sucky DM because he is using an NPC to steal the PCs' thunder, but I don't realize/want to admit he is a sucky DM, so I will instead hate all DMPCs, even those in games with DMs and groups I have never played with!"

But maybe that's just my interpretation of what most people seem to be saying.  

_Edit: I wasn't referring to people in this thread, or any particular person in general. Just many of the quotes I have seen on this, and other, messageboard referring to DMPCs._

I just don't get it. Okay, so you've had issues with the way a DMPC was run before (I guess I am using the term for an NPC that travels with the party, that is built on the same rules as the PCs, and follows the same rules). That doesn't mean every DM is going to run them that way. I just don't get the unconditional hatred so many seem to feel for them.


----------



## Brimshack (Nov 14, 2006)

It's interesting to see how different people weigh the judgement calls. Is it unthinkable that a DM could play a character and still mind his world? Improbable that a DM could play a character without stealing thunder? Perhaps, I just don't see any sense in which determining that the character is an NPC really helps that. If a DM doesn't have the discipline to handle these matters, he can be just as caught up in a character that is technically an NPC as any official PC. If anythig, I still think the disjunct - it's just an NPC - often provides a DM with an opportunity to deny the impact of his favoritism. Whereas declaring a character to be a PC puts the DM on the hotseat, so to speak, and calls attention to the problem in a way that I find helpful. My experience may be ideosyncratic, but the biggest scene stealers I have dealt with have in fact been overpowered NPCs, not DM PCs.

For my own part, I am uncormfortable with the notion of a sort of second class character, Cohort. The notion that you have say 6 characters in the dungeon, all with their lives on the line, but 2 are naturally subservient to the rest is itself an odd skew. Sure evil characters could decide one character has less value than another, but the notion that there is a natural division there I find rather suspicious. As a DM I could and would be at least as likely to throw a wrench in the works from an NPC cohort as I would from a PC. The notion that some characters are just there to fill in the gaps and won't stir up the pot is at least as prone to abuse as the notion that there is a character on the table who is tied to the DM. Others are clearly more comfortable with that, but I don't see it as a resolution favourable to a DMPC.


----------



## Goddess FallenAngel (Nov 14, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Reading this thread makes it seem like D&D Players are just a bunch of whiney children or there really are a lot of BAAAAAAAD DM's out there.
> 
> I've been playing and DMing since the early 80's and almost every DM that I've played under has had NPC's as part of the party. I've never had to deal with a scene stealing NPC, or maybe some of the stuff that people consider scene stealing is stuff that I dont.
> 
> ...





Yes! Exactly! My experience has been the same, and fortunately have only had to deal with 2 DMPCs in the 'bad' category - and neither of those for very long because I left the game.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 14, 2006)

I guess I don't understand the whole "DMPC" thing...

When I'm _running_ a game, I am incapable of having the same experience I have when _playing_, regardless of whether or not I designate an NPC as 'mine'.

How can I explore what I've created? Where's the fun in that? How can I cleverly overcome the obstacles I engineered?

In my CITY campaign, the party currently has to NPC's along; Joachim and Mallus. Note the similarity between the second NPC's name and my screen name. In fact, he was my former PC from a few years ago...

In no way is he my PC. He fills a role (which is often 'provide cynical quips while drinking gin'). I only used him, instead of creating a new character because, frankly, it was easier. I already had stats and a personality.

It's enjoyable to use him as DM, but that experience is categorically different from the one I got as a player. So I don't get it. I have no problem with DMPC's, I just don't see how someone could get the  'player experience' from them.


----------



## Brimshack (Nov 14, 2006)

Mallus, 

Re, sundry Questions: The experience is different, and the pleasure is more limited to character development than resolving problems, etc. Ownership of the character is what makes it a PC, but I certainly wouldn't argue that playing a DMPC generates the same experience as a regular player PC.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 14, 2006)

I have to say it depends on the game some too. People in D&D seem to balk at it a bit more if they have had a bad experience with it. 

However, in Champions (Hero), I always have a few DMPCs that rotate out. I like to keep a comic bookish, team themed game. And in something like Justice League, you have a different set of Heroes taking on any given adventure with a core group that doesn't change much. 

The PCs make up the core group and I bring in 2-4 NPC Team Members to flesh things out. No one has EVER objected...and in some cases, those NPCs are actually built on a higher or lower point scale than the players. 

I've actually had my players call in a heavy hitting NPC team member because they knew they would need the help. I never suggested that Dreadnought show up, they requested a high powered Telekinetic. 

Sometimes he's available, but sometimes if it's a task I know they can handle, he isn't available. 

Either way though, I think most of it comes down to experience and perception. If GMs have handled it well, then you're open minded to it...if they haven't, then you aren't.


----------



## Dragonbait (Nov 14, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> 1) If the NPC makes him/herself useful during the game and encounters: NOT SCENE STEALING.
> 
> 2) If the NPC has Knowledge that can help the PC's or steer the PC's in the right direction: NOT SCENE STEALING.
> 
> ...




Add this:
5) If the Players start metagaming and look to the PCNPC for ideas, answers, and plans without figuring things out for themselves.

I've experienced all those situations. DMPCs are not a bad idea when in small groups, but DMPCs are rarely executed well. I've seen all sorts, bit good and bad. I'm in a game right now where the DMNPC fills out possibilities 1-3, and 5. His character was supposed to be filling a gap in the group, but now does more damage than the combat-oriented characters, is the best warrior, and is seen as being the second group leader (and his plans always succeed, whereas mine have about a 50/50 chance of working. That makes things fun, though). I've been in games where the DMNPC was rather minor, and never seen as any kind of threat to the PC's screen time. I've seen a DM who had a "NPC of the week" and his favorite did everything one of the PCs did, but better (he broke the rules of the game to do it). I've been in games where the GM openly admitted that only his NPCs are interesting, and he could not think of any ideas involving the PCs. I've even been in a game where the DM had 8 DMPCs and forgot about the players during the combat for 10 minutes! 

So, to reiterate, DMPCs are fine, but rarely executed well.


----------



## Brimshack (Nov 14, 2006)

Probably true that it depends on personal experiences.

I also think that the question of an overpowered DMPC(orNPC) depends a little on how much it's used. It doesn't hurt to have one show up and help from time to time, or to allow one to be called in. Then the challenge for the PCs becomes resolving what problems they can while the NPC takes care of what tey need him to take care of. When it becomes a problem is when game after game is resolved primarily by an overpowered character run by the DM.

I recall a few times being quite relieved to find that a certain powerful NPC was going to help us in a tough situation, only to be disgusted x number of games later when the NPC was still with us and still central to resolution of every problem.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 14, 2006)

First: terminology.  Our crew has always used "NPC" when talking about non-player characters *in the party*.  We've never really had a term for people in the greater world that the party interacts with (innkeeper, evil enemy, etc.).

Now, on to the issue:

There are 3 or 4 types of NPC that can crop up in a party; I've used 'em all, and often, with no great problems as far as I can tell.

1. The hench, hireling, or (in 3e) cohort.  These I just have run by the player of the hiring or leadershipping PC; I'll provide occasional input to give it some personality and character, and that's about it.  It hangs around as long as its employment lasts, then sometimes leaves and sometimes gets promoted to full NPC (see 4, below).

2.  The rescuee.  These can be rescued slaves, a damsel-no-longer-in-distress, and so on.  In most cases, these are non-adventuring types anyway, so they tend to fade into the background while with the party (assuming the party keeps them fed and alive) and leave at the first opportunity.  Most of the time, nobody bothers "playing" these; they're just there until they're gone unless there's something more to them, in which case I as DM handle them.  Rarely, a rescuee has enough going for it that it gets taken on as a hench (see 1, above) or a full NPC (see 4, below).

3.  The story element.  These are NPC's forced by the plot - a Ranger guide to get the party through the mountains, a spy keeping tabs on the party from within, a captive that is more than it seems, etc.  Many older adventure modules have these, and if one crops up I'll usually play it as DM at least for the first while (though I'll usually get a player to roll its dice if-when necessary).  I include high-level mentors, trainers, nobility, etc. in this category, though only in the rarest of instances will a party end up adventuring with any such.

4.  The full NPC.  These are adventurers, rolled up using the same rules as PC's, that join the party usually via party recruitment.  They are treated as normal party members (they don't come with little "NPC" stamps on their foreheads), and are expected to take the same risks etc.  Sometimes, they don't stick around long e.g. the extra Cleric taken in for one adventure because the party knows there's lots of undead involved; while other times they can become integral to the party, just like any PC.  I as DM set their character and personality, and let the players (usually; I'll veto anything wildly out of character) determine their actions and roll their dice.

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's the full NPC (4, above) that people are mostly talking about here.  There's a few things a DM can do to avoid some of the problems noted above:

a) play the NPC as "one of the boys".  Give it opinions, give it character.  Have it agree with some PC's and argue with others, just like any other PC would.

b) don't always have the NPC know the right thing to do.  Have it give wrong advice as often as not, and the players will soon enough learn not to rely on it.   (or, failing that, make sure it has low enough wisdom that nobody would want its advice anyway...)

c) give it the same chance of dying or failing as a PC has.  This is important.  The NPC can't get preferential treatment, nor can it be always asked to "take one for the team" (though the players always like it when by random roll it's the NPC who gets squashed by the falling rock...)   That said, if the players take the metagame attitude of "it's only an NPC, leave it dead" where if it were a PC they'd bring it back, bring out the smackdown hammer: a party member is a party member.

d) if it starts getting too successful e.g. because of bad PC luck it was the only one not to die and has thus ground its way a level or two ahead of the party average, retire it - either temporarily or permanently.

Lane-"recently retired (again) NPC"-fan


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 14, 2006)

Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> I just don't get it. Okay, so you've had issues with the way a DMPC was run before (I guess I am using the term for an NPC that travels with the party, that is built on the same rules as the PCs, and follows the same rules). That doesn't mean every DM is going to run them that way. I just don't get the unconditional hatred so many seem to feel for them.




Not every 14-year-old who plays a good-aligned drow ranger who TWFs with scimitars is going to be a bad player, either...but enough of them are that it becomes a warning-sign for "bad experience coming."


----------



## Dragonbait (Nov 14, 2006)

Brimshack said:
			
		

> I also think that the question of an overpowered DMPC(orNPC) depends a little on how much it's used... I recall a few times being quite relieved to find that a certain powerful NPC was going to help us in a tough situation, only to be disgusted x number of games later when the NPC was still with us and still central to resolution of every problem.




Great point.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> c) give it the same chance of dying or failing as a PC has.  This is important.  The NPC can't get preferential treatment, nor can it be always asked to "take one for the team" (though the players always like it when by random roll it's the NPC who gets squashed by the falling rock...)




Sometimes you just have to lie and say that your DMNPC failed on a roll just to make the PCs feel better.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 14, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if you are weird or if I am the only one who caught the allusion to Gandalf.




Nah, I just totally missed the Gandalf allusion.

IME, the bad DMPCs are either:
a) The DM's dream character (i.e., Mary Sue), or
b) The DM's dream date.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 14, 2006)

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> Add this:
> 5) If the Players start metagaming and look to the PCNPC for ideas, answers, and plans without figuring things out for themselves.
> 
> I've experienced all those situations. DMPCs are not a bad idea when in small groups, but DMPCs are rarely executed well. I've seen all sorts, bit good and bad. I'm in a game right now where the DMNPC fills out possibilities 1-3, and 5. His character was supposed to be filling a gap in the group, but now does more damage than the combat-oriented characters, is the best warrior, and is seen as being the second group leader (and his plans always succeed, whereas mine have about a 50/50 chance of working. That makes things fun, though). I've been in games where the DMNPC was rather minor, and never seen as any kind of threat to the PC's screen time. I've seen a DM who had a "NPC of the week" and his favorite did everything one of the PCs did, but better (he broke the rules of the game to do it). I've been in games where the GM openly admitted that only his NPCs are interesting, and he could not think of any ideas involving the PCs. I've even been in a game where the DM had 8 DMPCs and forgot about the players during the combat for 10 minutes!
> ...




Having read that I feel your pain. Those cases sound like DM suckage, big time.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 14, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> I've been playing and DMing since the early 80's and almost every DM that I've played under has had NPC's as part of the party. I've never had to deal with a scene stealing NPC, or maybe some of the stuff that people consider scene stealing is stuff that I dont.



 As noted by GKJ3 and others, then most likely you have never had to deal with a DMPC.  A DMPC is _not_ just an NPC.

Most importantly, this is NOT edition-specific.  Like most others, I've been playing for a long time, too, and I've had DM's running DMPC's that were quite annoying.  I noticed it quickly and therefore I did my best never to make a similar mistake (in any of the many editions I played).

I think GKJ3 explained it the best.  Basically, I think DMPC is derogatory and should remain so.  If an NPC that the DM runs takes over the spotlight to the detriment of the game, steals scenes, etc., then the NPC is really a DMPC.  If what you think as a DMPC (say an actually PC of the DM in a revolving-DM group) doesn't do all that, then I'd call him an NPC during that period, not a DMPC.

It's all about semantics and how you want to define it.


----------



## Endur (Nov 14, 2006)

Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> To sum up, the only bad experiences I have had with DMPCs were in games with (what I consider to be) bad DMs.




I agree.  The only bad experiences cited in this thread are bad dming experiences.

I will add something more.  That different DMs have different skill sets.  And that some DMs who are very good at some things, may make mistakes in different areas.

So the concept of the DMPC is not necessarily bad, but it may be a concept that requires a more skillful DM to handle, or it may be a concept that more DMs make mistakes on.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 14, 2006)

I used DM PC's when necessary for filling out the party if they are missing a class.  However they don't usually contribute a ton of stuff to the group, they stay in the background for the most part, the only time I normally use them for party interaction stuff is to drop zingers on the other guys.


----------



## Psion (Nov 14, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I used DM PC's when necessary for filling out the party if they are missing a class.  However they don't usually contribute a ton of stuff to the group, they stay in the background for the most part, the only time I normally use them for party interaction stuff is to drop zingers on the other guys.




I use them for backstabbing spies that betray the party in the final scene... er, I mean, yeah, I do what you do.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Nov 14, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> DMPCs are just NPCs who happen to be part of the PCs adventuring group.




I'm not totally sure what the definition of a DMPC is, but from my perspective that isn't it.  In fact, I was about to ask what the definition of a DMPC was.  There's a distinction between an NPC travelling with the party who isn't controlled by a player, and an NPC who has preferential knowledge of the world and exists to one-up the PC's.

I've seen plenty of each, and each is pretty immediately identifiable as such in play.


----------



## rvalle (Nov 14, 2006)

First, I think there is a big differance between a NPC that runs with the party and a 'DMPC'.

I have a few NPC's that I use in our WLD game to help fill out the party when needed. Now that the party is getting to be higher level (8 now and 9 soon) I've desided to keep these guys back a few levels. So they will always be 1-3 levels behind the party. This should keep them usefull but avoid them from hogging the spot light.

As I told the players when they wanted one of the NPC's to cast a higher level spell for them... This is a story/game about YOU, not the NPC's. 

rv


----------



## Psion (Nov 14, 2006)

rvalle said:
			
		

> First, I think there is a big differance between a NPC that runs with the party and a 'DMPC'.




I don't.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 14, 2006)

rvalle said:
			
		

> First, I think there is a big differance between a NPC that runs with the party and a 'DMPC'.





			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I don't.




Gotta disagree with ya, Psion.  After all, if there weren't a difference they wouldn't have different names.  It just happens that people disagree on the meaning.  If DMPCs and NPCs are the same thing, let's get rid of one of those terms and stick with other.  I, for one, would be a helluva lot less confused!


----------



## rvalle (Nov 14, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't.




I guess its a question of ownership. They are not MINE like a PC of mine would be. There is no great sense of loss when one of them dies as its not a part of 'me' like a PC somewhat is. Its just... a part of the world the PC's are in. Just like the other NPC's the players meet but this one sometimes goes out with the party.

I try to make the unique with a personality but I try to do that with each NPC the party runs into (with varying success).

I've played with DMPC's. Its the DM's character that he built up over years of play. These guys are 'just' NPC's to me.

Just my view of course.

rv


----------



## Psion (Nov 14, 2006)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Gotta disagree with ya, Psion.  After all, if there weren't a difference they wouldn't have different names.  It just happens that people disagree on the meaning.  If DMPCs and NPCs are the same thing, let's get rid of one of those terms and stick with other.  I, for one, would be a helluva lot less confused!





They don't mean the same thing.

Random shopkeeps, villains, ingenues, sages, kings, nobles, corrupt guard captains, guild leaders, itinerant priests, and so forth, are all NPCs, but not DMPCs.

The functional omission from the acronym DMPC is the omission of an "N", implying nothing more that giving the character a status or position similar to a PC. Adding any deeper meaning than that taps into emotion caused by non-universally shared experience, making the meaning less intuitive.

There can be poorly run DMPCs and there can be well run DMPCs.

I decline to use the term "DMPC" in the specific way you are demanding I use it.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Nov 14, 2006)

Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> I've seen a lot of comments along the lines of "DMPCs suck!" and "I hate DMPCs with a passion!".
> 
> I don't get it. Why are they so bad? Am I the only person on the planet that doesn't mind DMPCs?



Nope.  I don't mind them either, when they are run well.


			
				Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> I've had brushes with a few bad ones occasionally, I admit. But the DM I usually game with has had a DMPC in just about every campaign I have been in except the few most recent... and I don't see the problem.
> 
> He usually only brings in a DMPC to cover an area we as PCs don't have covered, like when there were 2 of us, and neither of us a cleric, or when we needed information on a particular city, and we located an ex-resident, who we then had tag along (I want to point out, the DM didn't require us to take him along, the PCs decided to drag him along).



These are examples of DMPCs used correctly.  The problem arises from the fact that so very few DMs use them correctly.

Often, a DMPC is the true protagonist of the story the DM is trying to tell, and the actual PCs are his lackeys, companions and cohorts.  Being the true protagonist, the DMPC is the central figure in most plot arcs, most scenes and is generally just cooler than the rest of the party.
This is only fun for the DM.

Sure, you can dismiss it as a sign of a bad DM but it's incredibly common for DMPCs to take on this role.  As such, the experienced player's first reaction upon seeing a DMPC is to coup de grace the btard the first night camping and blame it on a wild animal; not that they actually do this but they often want to.


----------



## Cam Banks (Nov 14, 2006)

When I'm running a game, I'm not the star, the players are. If I want to see what a certain kind of character would be like as a PC, I'll use him in somebody else's game, where I can be sure that I'm not the one controlling the NPCs and presenting the world to the other players.

I've heard of people who get very very involved and emotionally invested in an NPC, who for all intents and purposes seems to be their outlet for not being able to be a player often enough. I can't get into that.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## gizmo33 (Nov 14, 2006)

The traditional style of DnD expects that NPCs are played by the DM according to the logic of the scenario.  The DM is not really in a position to solve his own puzzles.  The whole idea behind being a player is to figure out "what's behind the next door".  The point of being a DM-Player is lost on me.  Frankly, given the difficulties that arise from involving other people in your creative vision, I wonder why people who can conceive of a DMPC making sense would bother to play with other people anyway.

But then there are a zillion gaming styles and I'm sure some people don't care about the aspects of the game that would be most compromised by a DM-PC.  In a shared story-telling type situation where dice-rolling and player choice is kept to a minimum, then I think the DM-PC would get along fine, just another passanger riding the rails to the same destination.


----------



## Transit (Nov 14, 2006)

<DM Turbo-Rant Mode On>

You know, DMs wouldn't even need to run DMPCs if there weren't so many gamers out there who want to PLAY the game, but never want to do the WORK of running a game of their own.

Did it ever occur to any of you DMPC haters out there that maybe after spending hours and hours of prep time, and hundreds and hundreds of dollars on books, adventures and miniatures, that the DM just might like to be PART OF THE GAME and not just your own personal World-of-Warcraft-substitute, thanklessly running encounters so that you and the other players can have the fun of "dinging" another level?

Name any other social situation where someone makes an effort to prepare a fun activity for a group of friends, only to have people complain when they actually try to join in on the fun?  Think about spending a week planning a party for all of your friends, (food! games! decorations! party favors!) and when the party actually starts they all turn to you and say "what the heck are YOU doing here?"  

If a Dm's DMPC is really bugging you, why don't you offer to run the game for a while so he or she can PLAY?  Don't want to run the game?  Then shut the flumph up about the DMPC.

Frankly, everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM.

I'll say that again.

*Everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM.*

If your time as a DM is close to zero, if you're playing and playing and NEVER doing any of the work, then you've got NO RIGHT complaining about how a DM runs his game, or the fact that he chooses to let his or her own PC join in the fun.

You don't like the DMs DMPC?

Run a game for him to play in, or go find another game.

<DM Turbo-Rant Mode Off>


----------



## Brimshack (Nov 14, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> <DM Turbo-Rant Mode On>
> 
> Did it ever occur to any of you DMPC haters out there that maybe after spending hours and hours of prep time, and hundreds and hundreds of dollars on books, adventures and miniatures, that the DM just might like to be PART OF THE GAME and not just your own personal World-of-Warcraft-substitute, thanklessly running encounters so that you and the other players can have the fun of "dinging" another level?
> 
> Name any other social situation where someone makes an effort to prepare a fun activity for a group of friends, only to have people complain when they actually try to join in on the fun?  Think about spending a week planning a party for all of your friends, (food! games! decorations! party favors!) and when the party actually starts they all turn to you and say "what the heck are YOU doing here?"




Amen

I will say this, that a lot of the arguments categorically opposed to DMPCs strike me as assuming some specifics about the nature of the game and the style of the play. Valid concerns in themselves, but often inapplicable to other people's approch. If you can't imagine it working out, then it's probably best not to play a character in your own campaign. That just doesn't tell us anything about the way that others run a game.


----------



## Dragonbait (Nov 14, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> <DM Turbo-Rant Mode On>
> *Everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM.*
> <DM Turbo-Rant Mode Off>




Amen brudda'



			
				Transit said:
			
		

> <DM Turbo-Rant Mode On>
> everything else Transit said
> <DM Turbo-Rant Mode Off>




Perhaps I've been unfortunate with dealing with DMPCs, but the rest of what you say does not hold true to my experiences. I've found that most over-the-top DMPCs are used by people whom are almost always players and rarely DMs, not the other way around. The only regular DMs/GMs I know (a whopping 3 people, not including myself, mind you) do not use DMPCs.
Of course, I am not staunchly against DMPCs, I just rarely see them working out.


----------



## Odhanan (Nov 14, 2006)

> The main reason is DMPCs can steal the players thunder. They are easier for the DM to plot around and easier for the DM to make better than the PCs.



That's the substance of the main issue indeed. Once a DM fully understands this, s/he can move on and be able to manipulate DMPCs in a way that focuses the attention on the PCs rather than still it from them.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Nov 15, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I decline to use the term "DMPC" in the specific way you are demanding I use it.




Well, personally, I decline to use the term "DMPC" at all.  There are PC's, run by players, and NPC's run by the DM.  The shopkeep is an NPC, and the sorceror/rogue aiding the PC's on their current quest is an NPC.  There is no difference.  Each serves one purpose only, which is to move the game along, and make it more fun for the players (and therefore, by extension, for me).  When I hear the term "DMPC" the only connotation it has is the unkillable PC's that DM's have placed in parties with us for the sole purpose of upstaging the party (though the DM's in question would never admit to it).  In that sense, the DMPC is a symptom of bad DM'ing.


----------



## MojoGM (Nov 15, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> <DM Turbo-Rant Mode On>
> 
> Frankly, everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM.
> 
> ...




I couldn't agree more.  I'd go even further, but that is a topic for another thread...

I've used DMNPCs in the past, and I feel they work better with a small group where one of the roles needs to be filled.

We played Spelljammer for about 8 years with myself running and two players, plus a DMNPC.  Occasionally we'd have an additional guest, but mostly it was just the three of us.  It worked fine.

It all depends on your group and play style I suppose.


----------



## Brimshack (Nov 15, 2006)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Well, personally, I decline to use the term "DMPC" at all.  There are PC's, run by players, and NPC's run by the DM.  The shopkeep is an NPC, and the sorceror/rogue aiding the PC's on their current quest is an NPC.  There is no difference.  Each serves one purpose only, which is to move the game along, and make it more fun for the players (and therefore, by extension, for me).  When I hear the term "DMPC" the only connotation it has is the unkillable PC's that DM's have placed in parties with us for the sole purpose of upstaging the party (though the DM's in question would never admit to it).  In that sense, the DMPC is a symptom of bad DM'ing.




As the term DMPC can and has been used many times to denote characters who are not killable, and who have not been used in such a manner, your insistence on this "connotation" is less than reasonable. If it is often used in such a manner, then so are quite a few "NPCs." You lay the weight of bad DMing on a term which is neither sufficient nor necessary to establish the abusive style of play which you describe. Is this refusing to use the word? No. It's confounding two distinct concepts in a single word and obscuring the full range of possible approaches to the game.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 15, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> <DM Turbo-Rant Mode On>
> 
> You know, DMs wouldn't even need to run DMPCs if there weren't so many gamers out there who want to PLAY the game, but never want to do the WORK of running a game of their own.
> 
> ...




Jeff Spicoli : AWESOME, TOTALLY AWESOME!!


----------



## James Heard (Nov 15, 2006)

I think the truest test of any DMPC is when a party member falls in combat if the GM is willing to hand that extra character over to the character-less player and let them run it through for the rest of the game. If they can't/won't do it, then it's likely they've got too much ownership and investment in the character to run it properly, and the players should kill it at the earliest possible opportunity. Game masters run MONSTERS, how can you trust those dudes? 

And yeah, I ran games for years and years until fairly recently when other RL concerns moved me apart from my group. I don't think I can recall having a DMPC since I was in middle school in the 80s though, because even then I realized that it was probably a bad, bad idea. If I want to impart crucial plot information to the party I'll invent a crotchety old sage with a heart of gold, a benevolent priestly mentor, notorious contacts in the underworld, a sergeant or officer of the guard who apparently knows which modules I've read before he chats with the PCs, or let the players blow through XP with divinations. I don't need to make up a plucky sidekick or run their daddies taking care of the players in their fights. I don't need an additional character to filter information or protect them, because when I'm running a game I control the information and the dice already. Why even dabble in such an abusable situation?


----------



## QuaziquestGM (Nov 15, 2006)

When I have to run a party member NPC I try to follow a few general rules:

1:  I try to fill a need that he party has.  If the party has no healer....
2:  I try to make it in at least some small way a burden as well as an accet.  She is a Adept, inept at combat, with eneimies
3:  I try to keep the party from powergaming or using game mechanic knowledged to determine its complete capabilities and usefulness in all situations.  Multiclass, classmix never revealed.  Adept spirit shamans really keep them guessing for a while.
4: I give the party a reason to bring it along.  The 15 y.o. runaway "magic girl" with healing skills that the bard shot because she didn't come out from behind the bush when you approached her out in the middle of nowhere.....A good aligned party sort of feels obligated to take her along.
5:  Doesn't hog the spot light.  She is important in every encounter, because you have to get her to heal you afterwards...
6:  i use them to introduce plot elements.  If "witch hunters" are active in an area killing spell casters who are not aligned with their church.....  I make the npc have its own plot that is no more important that the plots of the rest of the party.  Of course, often some of the players didn't make a backstroy for their pcs, so the goals of the npc can give the party a sence of direction.  the Dwarf pc wants a mine, the paladin wants the slay evil dragons, the wizard and rogue are along for the ride, the npc healer wants to belong and is on the run from witch hunters...the party as reasons to exist and travel together and has a backstory that affects the plot.
7:  the npc acts in its own defence, but it is up to the party to maintain it.  it is a party resourse.  healer girl defends herself, but she isn't that good at it. No armour profency, uses most of her prepared spell slots on healing spells.  If the party doesn't defend her then they will lose her, same as their pack animals.
8:  it has a personality.  i don't use her to make stragedy suggestions, but she does get miffed..."but i healed you 2 hours ago....why do you keep getting into fights?"

I wouldn't hand off a npc with plot information to a new player.  A new player needs to make his own character.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 16, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Random shopkeeps, villains, ingenues, sages, kings, nobles, corrupt guard captains, guild leaders, itinerant priests, and so forth, are all NPCs, but not DMPCs.
> 
> The functional omission from the acronym DMPC is the omission of an "N", implying nothing more that giving the character a status or position similar to a PC.



This is an excellent point and is at the core of my objection to both the term and the practice. 

Most RPGs tilt the balance of power heavily towards the DM already. The idea of a DMPC is an unnecessary further infringement on the power of the players in your standard RPG dynamic. It robs the players both of good narrative moments (such as when the DMPC gets to deal a killing blow) and of decision-making power. 

Long-term NPCs are great. But they should be *N*PCs.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Nov 16, 2006)

If there's a good reason for a DMPC, then by all means go for it.

But if the DM wants a PC in his game, then he needs to decide if he's a DM or a player and then accept that role.

Beyond that, the amount of time a DM spends working on his DMPC can be put to better use making the adventure better instead.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 16, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> <DM Turbo-Rant Mode On>
> 
> You know, DMs wouldn't even need to run DMPCs if there weren't so many gamers out there who want to PLAY the game, but never want to do the WORK of running a game of their own.
> 
> ...





So just because you run the game gives you the right to suck all the fun out of it for everybody else?

Using your example a badly run DMPC is like inviting your friends over to a karoke party and never once allowing them to have the mike. They are forced to sit there and watch you preform.

I have been in games where DMs have had NPCs join the party and it was great even when I had the sneaking suspicion that the NPC was a character that the DM really wanted to play. What made it work is that they were a part of the party and  we never felt that we just there to play back up to the NPC.  They could die just as easily as one of us they didn't have all the answers and they never tried to lead the party.

But they were a pleasure to have a around they often spoke just the right words to help us solve the puzzle that we couldn't figure out on our own.

A good DMPC needs to be played with a subtle hand. 

I have also been in game where I wanted to strangle the DMPC and the DM. One example is we were trying to figure out a poem that a bad guy had left. We worked on it and thought we had it figured out but we wrong because we were missing one vital piece of infomation that the DMPC knew and held back so he was the one that solved the puzzle we never had a chance because we didn't know all the facts.

Nobody likes playing in a game where they never get any spotlight or a chance to shine where you are nothing but a cohort regardless if its another PC doing it or DMPC


----------



## haakon1 (Nov 16, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> the DM just might like to be PART OF THE GAME




I agree and I usually have DMPCs (2 of 3 games I run), but . . . I recruited my players because I love the game -- I wasn't drafted.


----------



## haakon1 (Nov 16, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> So just because you run the game gives you the right to suck all the fun out of it for everybody else?




Right?  Why yes.  Running a game gives you the right to do anything you want -- it's the right of an artist to create what he sees fit, critics be damned.  Of course, if nobody wants to play with you/look at your paintings/listen to your songs, your right is not so useful.




			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> A good DMPC needs to be played with a subtle hand.




All characters should be role played, that is, the character should be played as the character, no more, and no less, whether that character is a woodcutter, a seer, or a guy who ends up joining the party.

If you take the attitude that all characters are characters, it's easy for NPCs to join the party and become something more . . . the only real difference I've seen is that they tend to be more transient than other party members, more likely to be dropped off after an adventure.

Hmmm, in a game where D&D is cooperative role-playing and "ars artis gratia" -- the game for its own sake -- asking an NPC to join the party/letting the DM join in doesn't seem likely to "harm" any of the partcipants.

But in a game of powergamers where the goal is beating everyone else by having the best build, then I can see the objection.  Especially if the DM cheats in his own favor.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 16, 2006)

Brimshack said:
			
		

> It's interesting to see how different people weigh the judgement calls. Is it unthinkable that a DM could play a character and still mind his world? Improbable that a DM could play a character without stealing thunder? Perhaps, I just don't see any sense in which determining that the character is an NPC really helps that. If a DM doesn't have the discipline to handle these matters, he can be just as caught up in a character that is technically an NPC as any official PC. If anythig, I still think the disjunct - it's just an NPC - often provides a DM with an opportunity to deny the impact of his favoritism. Whereas declaring a character to be a PC puts the DM on the hotseat, so to speak, and calls attention to the problem in a way that I find helpful. My experience may be ideosyncratic, but the biggest scene stealers I have dealt with have in fact been overpowered NPCs, not DM PCs.
> 
> For my own part, I am uncormfortable with the notion of a sort of second class character, Cohort. The notion that you have say 6 characters in the dungeon, all with their lives on the line, but 2 are naturally subservient to the rest is itself an odd skew. Sure evil characters could decide one character has less value than another, but the notion that there is a natural division there I find rather suspicious. As a DM I could and would be at least as likely to throw a wrench in the works from an NPC cohort as I would from a PC. The notion that some characters are just there to fill in the gaps and won't stir up the pot is at least as prone to abuse as the notion that there is a character on the table who is tied to the DM. Others are clearly more comfortable with that, but I don't see it as a resolution favourable to a DMPC.




Trolling back up the thread a bit.

Why are you uncomfortable with the idea of servants?  It is certainly fitting with the setting.  Many, many fantasy heroes had mooks with them.  Conan had a pretty decent leadership score - granted, it kept getting knocked down 'cos he got all his followers and cohorts killed - but he still rarely trooped off on his own.

Since the cohort is given to me by a feat that I choose to take, screwing me over by having my cohort do something against my interests is hardly fair.  We don't suddenly have PC's wands that they crafted themselves spontaneously combust.  I would be very, very angry if a DM decided that my cohort was going to screw me over.  I would also be truly angry if my cohort was better than me.

Now, don't take that to mean that the cohort should be useless.  If I'm a fighter and I take a cleric cohort, I expect the cleric to be a better caster than me, of course.  But, I don't expect the cleric to be able to outfight me, have more hit points, better AC and know all the answers.

An NPC is fine.  I've run them and had DM's who've run them.  Groovy.  A DMPC is a bad thing IME.  

Look, one of the worst things you can do is bring in a Mary Sue character.  That's just bad for everyone.  A DMPC is a Mary Sue.  If he's not, then he's just an NPC.

An NPC cleric brought into a group that needs a healer is fine.  An NPC cleric that is 5 levels higher than the party, outfitted to the gills and has access to resources far beyond the party is a VERY BAD THING.


----------



## Vanuslux (Nov 16, 2006)

To me it's not a DMPC if it's just an NPC that's accompanying the party for some reason that's actually valid to the storyline or the actions of the players.  I only use the term DMPC when it's clear that the only reason the character is there is to let the DM play as well as DM, which is kind of silly to me.  A DM should never have a character with too much personal investment in the game, whether it's an attention stealing member of the PC party or that uber-NPC that he trots out whenever he wants to feel bigger through a 20th level wizard constantly screwing around with 3rd level characters in ways they're helpless to do anything about.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 16, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> They don't mean the same thing.
> 
> Random shopkeeps, villains, ingenues, sages, kings, nobles, corrupt guard captains, guild leaders, itinerant priests, and so forth, are all NPCs, but not DMPCs.
> 
> ...



I'm curious if you can clarify that a little.
I've had bad experiences in the distant past with DMPCs and have a pretty negative attitude toward them.
I would certainly say that I do not use them when I DM.
However, I have certainly had npcs that ran with the party for extended periods.
A few examples include a very important but fragile and combat useless sage that the party had to protect across a string of minor quests for information, a small team of soldiers sent to support the party (all about 2 to 3 levels below party level and officially subordinate), and an evil semi-immortal whose survival depended on the PCs achieving their goals.  They ran with the party, so according to post 40 this makes them DMPCs as you define them.  Yet they never had a status or position of a PC, thus making them npcs.  In my mind the latter answer is certainly correct.  In each case, I as DM can honestly say I never thought of any of these characters as "mine".  I RPed them as I would any other npc, with their own interests and goals.  But this was always a plot device to provide action for the real PCs.  In each case it was fine with me if the npcs succeeded or failed, and the determination of this was almost completely in the hands of the PCs.

Do you consider them DMPCs?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 16, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> <DM Turbo-Rant Mode On>
> 
> You know, DMs wouldn't even need to run DMPCs if there weren't so many gamers out there who want to PLAY the game, but never want to do the WORK of running a game of their own.
> 
> ...




If you don't enjoy DM'ing for what it is, don't do it.  I've pretty much always DM'ed and I've never felt like I wasn't part of the game because I didn't have my own character in the game.  I was the DM, not a player. As other have said, how can the DMPC take part in the game the same as a regular PC when they are a NPC with full knowledge of the events taking place?  

Your rant makes no sense to me to be honest, no offense to you personally.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Nov 16, 2006)

To me, a DMPC is just an NPC that the DM uses like it's his own personal PC.  The difference is in how much the character is metagamed.  

PCs act according to the goals of their players.  They take actions that are sometimes not what they would do in character because the players know what's optimal.  They have certain special privileges, like immunity to diplomacy, protection of niche, and protection of character concept (I don't do the last, but some people do) that NPCs do not.  They (should) receive equal spotlight time with the other players.  They sometimes receive special treatment from the DM to make sure the players have fun.   All of this is fine.

NPCs on the other hand generally act according to what makes sense in character and receive no special privileges or consideration from rules, the DM, or other players.

The problem with a DMPC, or an NPC that receives all of the special treatment of the PCs, is that the DM as player intrinsically has an advantage.  The DMPC can make all of the right moves because its player knows the monsters' abilities and strategies.  The DMPC can make all of the right preparations because his player knows the encounters for the day, or at least the table.  The DMPC can easily be stronger than the PCs by the DM's choice, and even if they're the same level the DMPC can be stronger because he's optimized for his current level rather than being grown organically.  

Fudging is another problem.  Most DMs fudge a bit to make the game more fun.  Maybe they don't want a PC to die right then or maybe they want to draw out the combat to add suspense.  With a DMPC the DM has a conflict of interest.  Even if he gives his DMPC the same consideration as the other PCs he'll be viewed as favoring himself.

Given all of this, of course the other players are going to resent the DMPC.

IMO NPCs that are part of the adventuring party are a good thing, while DMPCs are not.


----------



## Psion (Nov 16, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Do you consider them DMPCs?




Not really.

I would consider an NPC a DMPC if it could, and is intended to, fill the role of a PC in the party.

(Of course, some PCs don't do that, BID).

Right now, I am running my wife and oldest daughter through a mini dungeon. The have a druid and a rogue/wizard. I thew in a ranger and a bard. The bard is sort of a plot element (actually not in the party right now, having been kidnapped by the orcs whose lair they are now investigating, but once rescued, he'll participate.) But the ranger is totally there to lend combat and skill check support.

The ranger's arguable... I might drop him and not maintain him. If I do bother to advance him with the party and run them with him again, I'd consider him a DMPC.

In my last campaign, the party lacked an arcanist of any sort, and needed some divination, so I made a seer/chakra savant to fill the bill. It was a character I liked. He filled a role in the party. I advanced him with the party. He was pretty clearly a DMPC to me. Of course, I never let him steal the spotlight, but there were certainly a few occasions when he proved himself handy to have around (like throwing up a timely intellect fortress.) I don't think I was "wrong" to run him in the party, as some are insisting in the purely negative context of the word.

I'm not looking for a cut and dried definition of DMPC, like you seem to want to. I'm just saying that its not functionally equivalent to "any NPC" and it's perfectly possible to run them in a fashion that is good for game play.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Nov 16, 2006)

This is all sorts of fun. We’ve got competing definitions of DMPC going around. We’ve got competing ideas of player attitude and experience. We’ve got questions about what rights and duties DM’s have. 

In short, tons of highly relevant fun. 

Ok, as I understand it, a DMPC is a character in game, controlled by the DM who would seem like a PC if written up in a story hour. Strong, weak, show stopping or not does not apply. 

DMPCs can be bad in a variety of ways. Most of these stem from the fact that the DM has more or less total control over the game world. It’s hard to keep things even, it’s hard to keep things fair, and it’s hard not to cheat. And I mean cheat in the “Oh yeah, I suppose Keldorn wouldn’t know anything about the circle of black daggers,” sort of way. 

DMPCs can be good in a variety of ways. Most of these stem from the fact that the PCs get to be the ones running around doing all the cool stuff and having all the fun. PCs are the heroes. PCs get loot. PCs get stronger. PCs accomplish goals in the spotlight. PCs get to have those 20 minute long discussions over weather it was right to kill that wizard (while the DM looks on, wishing he could interject). The DM can get into more of those situations with a DMPC. 

The need for DMPCs also gets stronger when you consider that some sets of PCs don’t trust anyone outside the party, and thus, even while not dungeneering, it’s really hard for the DM to get in on any of the banter. It’s also a voice into the party. Since some groups have a lot of inertia, the DM having a voice that can say “this thing over here looks cool” can be just the thing a party needs to keep moving in fun directions. 

There are specific games that I find myself wanting DMPCs in. Those games are when the players do everything in character. Those are the games when the players are hostile (or aggressive, or passive, or non open) to non-party members. Those are the games where the players insist on planning for 20 minutes in character before a battle. The times where the players keep me waiting for something cool to happen are the times when I want to be a player. In short, I want a DMPC in the games where I can get bored as a DM, but would be loads of fun as a PC.

In all the best games, I find that there’s so much happening that a DMPC doesn’t feel necessary. I’m jumping between groups. Things are exploding. Situations are collapsing. We’re rushing from one awesome moment to the next. Those times, a DMPC would just slow me down. I’m too busy setting up the next set of bowling pins. 

But in a typical “I’m playing my character this way because that’s what he’d do” sort of game, I find myself really wanting to be in on the “Playing my character” aspect.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Nov 16, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> If you don't enjoy DM'ing for what it is, don't do it.  I've pretty much always DM'ed and I've never felt like I wasn't part of the game because I didn't have my own character in the game.  I was the DM, not a player. As other have said, how can the DMPC take part in the game the same as a regular PC when they are a NPC with full knowledge of the events taking place?
> 
> Your rant makes no sense to me to be honest, no offense to you personally.




It's a rant, it's visceral, not logical, and I think it hit all the right buttons. 
And it applies to just over half the total games I've been in.


----------



## The_Old_one (Nov 16, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> Frankly, everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM.
> 
> I'll say that again.
> 
> ...




Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. 
I can see where you're coming from, but it only works with the assumption that everyone enjoys both running and playing the game. Personally, I'm happy to be the one running D&D 100% of the time. I'm not sure why, I just tend to have much less fun on the other side of the screen, I usually end up bored, and then I try to 'make my own fun'. I'm your stereotypical problem player.   

There are exceptions to the rule, like my friend Mike's RuneQuest campaign, or my kid brother's M&M game, but these two are the first time in 15 years of gaming where I've actually looked forward to being a player as opposed to DM.

Anyway, my point is this:
Not everyone who plays D&D considers running a game as DM to be fun, and not everyone has it in them to be a good player. It takes a certain quality to be a player as opposed to DM.
Everyone has is it in them to be a DM IMO, all it takes is imagination, a fair grasp of game mechanics and a sense of fairness. 
Running a PC though? Oy. You have to come up with a solid character who's 'on screen' All. The. Time. That means you need to make the effort to stay 'in character' throughout the entire campaign...years sometimes. You've got to make the effort to get on with all the other PCs, (although that's not too hard at times), and you've got to be on your toes enough to figure out the villain's evil plans, solve the puzzles and survive the fights...sometimes all at once!

No sir, give me the screen every time. It's fun, and it's easy.  

Edit: Sorry about the threadjack...to try and keep it on topic, the above is why I don't run DMPCs, never have and never will. It's enough of a full time job to run a PC, I can't see how I could run a game simultaneously without BOTH suffering as a result.


----------



## GreatLemur (Nov 16, 2006)

I've generally gotten the impression that "DMPC" is a strictly perjorative term used when an gamemaster's attachment to or identification with a particular NPC has grown to a noticeable, game-harming extent.  So it seems deeply weird to me to hear somebody saying "DMPCs can be used well" when, by definition, a properly run NPC is _not_ a DMPC.

There's a reason we've got gamemasters and players in this hobby, folks.  The gamemaster gets to have all the power because he hasn't got a personal stake in the story.  The moment a gamemaster essentially becomes a player--while still wielding the power of a gamemaster--things are going to start to suck for all the other, _non_-gamemaster players.

Now, the GM can have NPCs he or she likes.  For that matter, those NPCs can go along with the players' party and help them out.  That's all cool.  The problem is when the GM actually starts to look at such an NPC as his or her character, and run the game differently because of that.  _That's_ what a DMPC is.  Everything else is just NPCs and cohorts.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 16, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Not really.
> 
> I would consider an NPC a DMPC if it could, and is intended to, fill the role of a PC in the party.



Ok, thats more clear (to me, at least     ).  thanks

I agree then.



> (Of course, some PCs don't do that, BID).



  heh true.....



> Right now, I am running my wife and oldest daughter through a mini dungeon. The have a druid and a rogue/wizard. I thew in a ranger and a bard. The bard is sort of a plot element (actually not in the party right now, having been kidnapped by the orcs whose lair they are now investigating, but once rescued, he'll participate.) But the ranger is totally there to lend combat and skill check support.
> 
> The ranger's arguable... I might drop him and not maintain him. If I do bother to advance him with the party and run them with him again, I'd consider him a DMPC.
> 
> In my last campaign, the party lacked an arcanist of any sort, and needed some divination, so I made a seer/chakra savant to fill the bill. It was a character I liked. He filled a role in the party. I advanced him with the party. He was pretty clearly a DMPC to me. Of course, I never let him steal the spotlight, but there were certainly a few occasions when he proved himself handy to have around (like throwing up a timely intellect fortress.) I don't think I was "wrong" to run him in the party, as some are insisting in the purely negative context of the word.



Well I think games with the kids is an ideal example of when DMPCs can be a great idea.  The kind of issues I've had go out the door under that condition.

The last example is a case of the type thing that I have had issues with.  But, I have no doubt that a good DM could have no issue here and would expect you and many others here to be much better at dealing with this than any random DMs Bryon met from time to time in his teens and twenties.



> I'm not looking for a cut and dried definition of DMPC, like you seem to want to. I'm just saying that its not functionally equivalent to "any NPC" and it's perfectly possible to run them in a fashion that is good for game play.



That's fine.  I really don't need one either.  I just saw your two comments and decided that since the world revolves around me I'd ask your view of my case.


----------



## IcyCool (Nov 16, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> Everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM.




QFT.

This will give those whiny "I-am-entitled-to-whatever-I-want-and-if-I-don't-get-it-you-are-a-bad-DM" players a chance to see what DMing is like (and hopefully have to deal with someone just like them), and those power-tripping DM's can spend some time being a player (and discovering first-hand why players don't like to be rail-roaded).

It might make for more polite and conscientious gamers in general.

But you might as well ask for Lance Armstrong to pedal his butt to the moon...


----------



## takyris (Nov 16, 2006)

I've seen it done well, and I've seen it done badly.

Like others, the difference for me is whether the DMPC:

1) exists to prod the players to follow the plot
2) outshines an existing PC at something that PC is supposed to be good at

When I played a DMPC, I played a paladin. The group was good, the paladin was young and not of the "Make people do it my way" persuasion, and we needed a second front-line fighter and someone to augment the party's one cleric. She didn't outshine the fighter, she CERTAINLY didn't outshine the cleric, and when the group grew larger (another couple players joined), I did the obligatory "she falls to blackguard" bit, and she left the group.

Currently, I'm a little annoyed because the DMPC in the game I'm playing in is a better archer than my wife's PC -- who is an archery-focused ranger. The DMPC survives every fight because he never rushes in to help with melee combat -- he is according, to the DM, too small and fragile to risk doing so. So if any combat goes bad, my wife's archer/ranger runs in to help, and the DMPC sits back and keeps archering... and my wife's PC is almost always unconscious at the end of the fight.

On the up side, this DMPC does not do any of the out-of-combat stuff unless asked -- he's shy. So at least he's not taking over there.


----------



## Slife (Nov 16, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> *Everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM.*




Only if you have just one player.




By your logic, the percent DMing for each should person be:
100*(number of people)^(-1)%


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 16, 2006)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Most RPGs tilt the balance of power heavily towards the DM already. The idea of a DMPC is an unnecessary further infringement on the power of the players in your standard RPG dynamic. It robs the players both of good narrative moments (such as when the DMPC gets to deal a killing blow) and of decision-making power.
> 
> Long-term NPCs are great. But they should be *N*PCs.



One question: who, then, plays them?  If the DM sets their personality and retains power of veto over the NPC's doing anything way out of character, then the players by committee can run them.  But they don't ruin themselves; someone at least has to roll their dice, keep track of their hit points and spells, etc.

Someone else mentioned another excellent use for in-party NPC adventurers: spare characters to play when someone's own PC's are dead, captured, or otherwise out of action long-term; also they provide a way for drop-in visitors to get involved.

I have to be careful, though; if a party NPC is there as a plot element and-or has some deep dark secret (e.g. it's not the class and-or race it claims to be) I'd not want to pass that over to a player to run, and life's too short to be coming up with dual character sheets for characters like these.

Lanefan


----------



## Cor Azer (Nov 16, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> <DM Turbo-Rant Mode On>
> *Everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM.*
> <DM Turbo-Rant Mode Off>




I actually disagree with this. As mentioned above, some people just don't find it fun to run games, and some people (like me) can occasionally be a bit too control-freaky to play in a game (wanting to know every last detail of plot whys, wheres, and whats).

I do think everyone should _try_ to run a game at least once, but there's certainly no need to have them running games half of their gaming time.

The DM does get to play in the game... the DM gets to play every single character that isn't a PC. These can be as prominent or not as desired, but it should not generally overshadow the PCs.

I like one rule of thumb mentioned earlier - would the DM be willing to hand off the NPC to a new player or a player whose actual PC had just died? If that's cool, then the NPC is fine. If not, then you're in a suspicious situation*.

*Yes, I get there may be outside circumstances that can cause this besides DMPC syndrome, but those are fairly easy to adjudicate, in my opinion.


----------



## GreatLemur (Nov 16, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> One question: who, then, plays them?  If the DM sets their personality and retains power of veto over the NPC's doing anything way out of character, then the players by committee can run them.  But they don't ruin themselves; someone at least has to roll their dice, keep track of their hit points and spells, etc.



They're NPCs.  The DM runs them just like any other NPC.  It's when he or she starts treating them _differently from other NPCs_--identifying with them, putting them in the PCs' spotlight, expecting them to survive every session--that you get into DMPC territory.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 16, 2006)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> They're NPCs.  The DM runs them just like any other NPC.  It's when he or she starts treating them _differently from other NPCs_--identifying with them, putting them in the PCs' spotlight, expecting them to survive every session--that you get into DMPC territory.




Pretty much.  WHen I run a NPC in a party he is never the focus, the story never revolves around him, he is only there to give the party something they are lacking.  Sure I give him some personality, but nothing that really conflicts.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 16, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Pretty much.  WHen I run a NPC in a party he is never the focus, the story never revolves around him, he is only there to give the party something they are lacking.  Sure I give him some personality, but nothing that really conflicts.



Sounds like me, except sometimes the personality *will* conflict, just for fun. 

Lanefan


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 16, 2006)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> Right?  Why yes.  Running a game gives you the right to do anything you want -- it's the right of an artist to create what he sees fit, critics be damned.  Of course, if nobody wants to play with you/look at your paintings/listen to your songs, your right is not so useful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think well played NPCs add so much to a game. They make the world more vivid. In the games I played in where their was party NPCs that worked we thought of them as a part of the party they got healing first if they were in the most danger of dying we shared loot and magic items fairly we never thought of them as just the NPCs. 

As a matter of fact when one died we went on a quest to try and bring him back at great risk to us. 

I don't have a knee jerk reaction when I see a NPC even if it is a DMPC because I have seen them played very well. 

But I do resent when an NPC comes into a party and they are a high level and they are just so much better than the PCs that they take on a major role not leaving room for anyone else. At that point I wonder why am I even at the table why doesn't the DM rollup some more characters and play my himself. 

Rant

I am getting a litle sick of here DMs rant and rave about how players suck and whine and that we don't bring anything to the table. If you are not having fun behind the screen then take a break. As speak as a player and a DM.

Rant


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 17, 2006)

My experience, I only use them when I think the PCs need help. They shouldn't be there to take the spotlight from the PCs nor upset the balance between the DM and the PCs. DM is there to run the game, adjudicate rulings and in general, tell something of a story that the PCs affect. PCs are the heroes. (Well most of the time.) They deserve their time in the sun, not be second guessed or take as a back seat to someone else.


----------



## Imagicka (Nov 17, 2006)

Greetings...



			
				Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> I've seen a lot of comments along the lines of "DMPCs suck!" and "I hate DMPCs with a passion!".I don't get it. Why are they so bad? Am I the only person on the planet that doesn't mind DMPCs?



Well, evidently from your experience you had more experience with what I would consider to be an NPC than a DMPC.  I think it goes without saying that any DM who plays a DMPC is a bad DM.

But, here’s a few questions to determine if your dealing with an NPC or a DMPC…

Does the character have better abilities than your own character?  Sometimes even being three or four levels higher than the sum of all the other characters’ levels combined?
Is the character the best warrior/fighter of the group AND the best spell-caster?
Is the character the only one capable of doing things that is required to advance in the campaign? _He’s the only one who can open up the star portal._
Is the character a black-hole of coolness or aloofness that, and you’ve well past the event-horizon a few moments after meeting the character?
This character is the only one in the party with magical weapons, armour or items, yet somehow you find another magical sword that only they can use?
Do you feel that the only thing keeping this character from being a despot tyrant is the fact that he's travelling with this party for some wholly unknown reason?
Does the DM go into long and labourious tirades about this character’s exploits?
Do you find your character taking a backseat to the actions of this character?  Despite the fact that the DM keeps insisting that his character is still only an NPC?
Do you feel that character could probably accomplish the campaign on it’s own?
Do you feel like the DM wouldn’t even notice if the other characters weren’t there?
Do you feel like the DM wouldn’t even notice if the other _players_ weren’t there?
Do you feel dirty and uncomfortable because you think that the DM would like to be alone with his character? Or worse, would rather have an audience?
Do you think (or did) the DM will find a way to kill your character after you’ve done something to remove the NPC character out of play?
Did the DM cry when that character was removed from play?
Is the character’s name Mary Sue?
One of my friends was notorious for running games where he would have a group of NPCs, who would be whittled down into one NPC.  Soon after a while, the players would come to the realization that this NPC/DMPC was pretty much there to keep the plotline in check.  The DMPC would _thankfully_ be in the background most of the time.  Until it came to the point where major plot-points would arise; then he’d take over.  The end battles were inevitably the DMPC fighting the BBEG while the rest of the party was dealing with the evil minions. 

Personally, I’ve never seen a good DMPC.  But that’s the distinction I make.  If it’s a good DMPC, then it’s not a DMPC, it’s an NPC.  However, in my experience when dealing with DMPCs, more often than not, I’d usually sit there feeling dirty and sullied because the DM wanted an audience for his masturbatory roleplaying session.   The last time my friends were playing with this DM, they swore up and down that he was a ‘changed’ player.  That he wasn’t doing that sort of thing anymore (along with all the other bad gaming habits he had); so I decided to show up to a game and sit in for a session.  – I don’t know if it was me, or what.  But as soon as I showed up, he slipped into his old bad habits. 

If I’m ever forced to have a party NPC more often than not they are nerfed, incompetent, bumbling and far inferior to the other PCs, and realized as being comic-relief with a handful of skills that the PCs are lacking, who’d ultimately get killed at the first chance.



			
				ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> If the NPC makes him/herself useful during the game and encounters: NOT SCENE STEALING.



However, if the character makes themselves useful ALL the time, for EVERY encounter.  IS SCENE STEALING.



> If the NPC has Knowledge that can help the PC's or steer the PC's in the right direction: NOT SCENE STEALING.



But when the character is the ONLY one who has the needed knowledge, always has knowledge about the pertinent situation, or is always steering the party in the ‘right’ direction IS SCENE STEALING

Now, a lot of people have mentioned that the whole idea behind the DMPC is beyond them.  I congratulate them on being lucky enough to never having to experience it.  I haven’t been so lucky.  Personally, I never understood why people wanted to do that myself too.  Especially when it came to online roleplaying. 

I used to run a Mush.  For those of you unfamiliar with such things, you can always look it up at Wikipedia.  One of the things I wanted was that all the staff members would play NPCs.  To have an ‘us’ against ‘them’ mentality going.  That all the staff would pool their information and work together to play characters that would interact with the regular non-staff players. Effectively they were characters that were separate from the staff account characters. 

But still no matter how hard I tried.  No one on staff wanted to play NPCs.  They wanted their own PCs.  I really never saw the reason for this.  Because the only difference between the PC and the NPC was that a staff member could gather information from other staff members because as an NPC they would be privy to it.  As for a staff run PC, they couldn’t do such things, because it was grounds for dismissal.  In the beginning, for the longest while I had staff play the more important characters on the mush, with the stipulation that once a regular player was powerful enough to fill the position, to take over the role with their own character, the staff run PC would step aside.  So, this being a vampire mush, I had my Vampire Wizard (staff member) play the prince of the city. 

After a while someone became powerful enough in-game to become the prince.  But the staff member always had some excuse, some reason not to let that person become the prince.  It was the only time I ever had to fire someone.  Mind you, there were a few more reasons for her dismissal other than not stepping aside. 



			
				Transit said:
			
		

> You know, DMs wouldn't even need to run DMPCs if there weren't so many gamers out there who want to PLAY the game, but never want to do the WORK of running a game of their own.



I don’t know about that.  It’s not that easy to run a game.  It’s even a heck of a lot harder to run a game that people are going to find fun and entertaining.  Not everyone who plays can successfully run. 



> Did it ever occur to any of you DMPC haters out there that maybe after spending hours and hours of prep time, and hundreds and hundreds of dollars on books, adventures and miniatures, that the DM just might like to be PART OF THE GAME and not just your own personal World-of-Warcraft-substitute, thanklessly running encounters so that you and the other players can have the fun of "dinging" another level?



I don’t care how much work you do, how much prep time you put into the game.  (If the work is there, it’s going to show, and every one I know who plays the game is going appreciate that level of effort.)  But did it ever occur to you that no one wants to sit and watch the DM bombastically monopolize the game by injecting his own character into the game? 



> Name any other social situation where someone makes an effort to prepare a fun activity for a group of friends, only to have people complain when they actually try to join in on the fun?



You’ve never been a parent have you?  To answer your question… ANY party or social event that a parent plans for their child(ren).



> If a Dm's DMPC is really bugging you, why don't you offer to run the game for a while so he or she can PLAY?  Don't want to run the game?  Then shut the flumph up about the DMPC.



You know, if it was about the DM feeling left out, and wanting to play a character; never getting a chance to be a player.  That’s one thing.  But I’ve seen a lot of DMs who have the _“player-jones”_ and yet still manage to play an NPC that doesn’t monopolize or dominate the game.



> Frankly, everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM. I'll say that again. *Everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM.*



Oh, I agree with you there.  Anyone who plays the game should try their hand at running at least once, and see how hard it is. 



> If your time as a DM is close to zero, if you're playing and playing and NEVER doing any of the work, then you've got NO RIGHT complaining about how a DM runs his game, or the fact that he chooses to let his or her own PC join in the fun.



Well, I am a DM, and occasionally a player, so I have every right to say this.  If you think anyone who sits behind the screen should be allowed to bring to the table a character that is going to share in the limelight of the PCs, if not bask in it;  or worse hog it; that isn’t there for support, but for the DM to get his player-jollies.  Then he shouldn’t be sitting behind the screen.  It’s selfish, and selfishness is the one quality that DMs cannot afford to have.  DMs are there for the players.  If a DM can’t find fun and enjoyment in running a game for other players, then they are sitting on the wrong side of the screen. 

Elf Witch, I just love the Karaoke reference. 



			
				Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> There are PC's, run by players, and NPC's run by the DM.  The shopkeep is an NPC, and the sorceror/rogue aiding the PC's on their current quest is an NPC.  There is no difference.



Actually, I respectfully don’t agree.  There are PCs.  There are secondary PCs (like familiars and cohorts).  There are NPCs like the shopkeeper, or the dragon that the party has to rescue from the evil princess.  Then there is the Party NPC, or PNPC if you will.  Then there is the DMNPC or DMPC, the NPC that the DM has in the party who like some countries’ military strategies don’t have clearly defined goals or an exit plan.  – The problem is when the DM starts playing that NPC like a PC, hence the acronym DMPC.



> Each serves one purpose only, which is to move the game along, and make it more fun for the players (and therefore, by extension, for me).  When I hear the term "DMPC" the only connotation it has is the unkillable PC's that DM's have placed in parties with us for the sole purpose of upstaging the party (though the DM's in question would never admit to it).  In that sense, the DMPC is a symptom of bad DM'ing.



Well, I agree with you there.  But for me there are distinct differences between NPCs, DMNPCs, and DMPCs, oh, and ICBMs.



			
				haakon1 said:
			
		

> Right?  Why yes.  Running a game gives you the right to do anything you want -- it's the right of an artist to create what he sees fit, critics be damned.  Of course, if nobody wants to play with you/look at your paintings/listen to your songs, your right is not so useful.



Then there are the artists that understand that they are nothing without the audience.  The critics are unfortunately a fact of life, like maggots or mould.  Being the DM doesn’t give you the right to do anything you want.  It’s a tool to allow you to be creative as your imagination will allow.  The trick is being imaginative, creative, entertaining enough to help create a story with players.  The GM is _nothing_ without the players.  A GM without players is just another unpublished writer.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 17, 2006)

Yep, GM with out players is just...me when I'm not running.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Nov 17, 2006)

Well now, what am I doing at the moment in my game? My, I think I am running a dmpc. 

Ok, the background was that a current player was dm'ing RttToEE until part of it got too much for him. My character had been the central hub figure that had sought out the others to recruit them to the quest. 

(It was very cool to do that, as each character was chased & wooed because of their talents.)

Anyway, said player needs a break so I dm, right. Now it doesn't make much sense to remove my character nor do I want to remove him because I want to and will be a player again.

So I run him like I do a pc where the player can't make it:
* I've got a brief combat card for battle,
* He'll be played in combat by another (trustworthy ) player
* He earns 1/2 xp but full treasure,
* His main powers get used as required (i.e. diplomacy+20) but lesser skills are sidelined, and
* He contributes less detail to roleplaying and more summary. 

He & his cohort can place a drag on my attention span so that has to be managed, no two ways about that. But this is pretty much the deal - if he has to go when I dm then I'll choose to be a player. Certainly if I was going to start a campaign I wouldn't have made such a character, and the original dm didn't. However situations change so we adapt.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2006)

Personally, I would prefer DMPC to remain a perjorative term.  

If a DM is running an NPC and no one has a problem with it, then no further terms are needed.  I like tossing a bard (or recently a truenamer) NPC in with parties to work as exposition and background goodies.  It seems to work well.  Although I doubt anyone is going to get too outshone by a bard.  

However, having been on the receiving end of DMPC's - unkillable NPC's with all the answers who can instantly obliterate your PC on a whim - I know exactly what the problem is.  NPC's are not a problem.  DM's who feel that their NPC's are more important to the game than the PC's are.

Imagicka - well said.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 17, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> NPC's are not a problem. DM's who feel that their NPC's are more important to the game than the PC's are.



What about DMs who feel that their NPCs are AS important to the game as the PCs are?

To me, that is fine. It's much the same when comparing PCs with other PCs - if one is the star of the show (always) and the others are therefore more like extras or what have you, there's a problem. So, I guess I put DMPCs in with player PCs, and judge them basically the same.way. That said, I think they only really have a legitimate long term place when filling gaps in numbers.


----------



## Dagger of Lath (Nov 17, 2006)

Our group always uses a DMPC. The real reason is because we rotate DMs and so everyone needs a PC in the group. However it's proven really useful. The DM can drop information into the group without going out of character, bring up discussion on an issue that might be ignored or just participate in the in-character screwing around. We only rarely have problems with a DMPC, and the positives make up for the occasional problems.


----------



## Talmun (Nov 17, 2006)

Imagicka,

I was going to write my opinions here, but then I read your post which says everything I was going to say only better.

Bravo


----------



## Numion (Nov 17, 2006)

Just say no to DMPCs.

I think the original division in the game is pretty good. The players have the PCs, and as a DM I have _everything else_. I don't want to step on that small piece of the game the players have just for themselves.

Additionally I find the idea of playing a PC in a game I run totally boring. Most of the incentives I have for playing a PC and making him succeed aren't there for a DMPC. 

From a players point of view - um, no. Bad experiences and all that. We've had some good experiences with recurring NPCs, our servants or specialists we needed, but their motivation was not to hang around with us or go on adventures (thus, they were not DMPCs).



> Everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM.




That's logically impossible, except if everyone was running 1-on-1 games


----------



## fusangite (Nov 17, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> What about DMs who feel that their NPCs are AS important to the game as the PCs are?



Those would be the DMs I don't play with.


----------



## haakon1 (Nov 17, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> But I do resent when an NPC comes into a party and they are a high level and they are just so much better than the PCs that they take on a major role not leaving room for anyone else. At that point I wonder why am I even at the table why doesn't the DM rollup some more characters and play my himself.




I don't understand.  I've never been in an RPG I "resented".  I can only very vaguely remember a game of GURPS that was lame, so I only played once . . . maybe the difference is that most of the people I've played D&D with I either taught the game or reminded them it existed, so we think alike?  I dunno.

Anyhow . . . the only time I've introduced more powerful characters who actually adventured with the party, as opposed to a walk on conversational/Basil Exposition role, they were old PC's of other players.  Actually, in both cases, these were PC's of players who are DM's, but of their own campaigns, not mine.  I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing in a more powerful character developed in another campaign, but I have some pretty strict rules on incoming characters:
1) The character must have been homegrown, from 1st level.  Every single level must always be earned -- if you want a new character, you start at 1st again, not the average of the party.
2) I check the stats and the gear thoroughly to make sure it looks "right".  No test on GP value, just nothing completely broken.
3) The character has to have history in Greyhawk, where I run my games, or a plausible in game reason they got there from elsewhere.

One of the two more powerful characters was grown up from 1st level in a different campaign I run, and this was a way of exposing a newer party to the wider world.  It fit the campaign arc, it suited the player (who was switching characters), and it didn't seem to disrupt anything.

The other was a player's first ever character -- with all the sentimental attachments that come with that -- who had retired near where the action was happening.  The PC's actually needed a savior to prevent a TP+KoBK -- Total Party + Keep on the Borderlands Kill, resulting from me having much of the Caves of Chaos assault the Keep after one too many PC raids.  Tossing an 8th level ranger in to help their 3rd level party and army of peasants didn't seem crazy, since they were sending out messangers, magically contacting birds, etc. for help.  And the players didn't mind at all -- I've been told that insane, 180 round dozens of characters struggling across the Keep fight was the best fight EVAR.  

I've never brought in a higher level PC that I, as DM, raised.  But not because it's inherently "wrong", just because it's never seemed to fit the plot at hand.  I do like to use my own -- and others -- retired characters as NPCs.

Another thought on NPCs versus "DMPCs" . . . often I let new players "guest star" by taking over an NPC or sometimes a DMPC party member . . . of the 8 characters in my email campaign, two were born as module NPCs . . . one is effectively a DMPC, the other is a real player character now.  And a third character is a PC inherited by another player.  And a fourth is a PC who's player was absent -- with me running the character -- for a while, and now back to being played as a PC again.  In an email game, anyhow, it seems that characters are just characters, where voiced by Connery or Moore or the new guy.


----------



## haakon1 (Nov 17, 2006)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> He & his cohort can place a drag on my attention span so that has to be managed, no two ways about that.




That's definitely an issue in a live game (doesn't matter over email).  Actually, much more of an issue in 3e, especially at higher levels, that in 1st Edition.  DMing is a LOT more tedious and tiring in terms of rule juggling now, if you attempt strictly adhere to the many rules.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 17, 2006)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Those would be the DMs I don't play with.



Interesting. Why's that?


----------



## Dagger of Lath (Nov 17, 2006)

Imagicka. Your definition of DMPC appears to be somewhere between "any NPC that I dislike" and "Mary Sue". I don't really think that this definition is any more helpful or useful than words like "loser", which aside from a generally pejorative statement of feeling don't really define the target precisely. Wouldn't calling such a character a Mary Sue NPC be more precise to your definition while not destroying a potentially useful term with pejorative connotations?

In my opinion, the term DMPC is most useful when it carries this definition:

_A DMPC is a specific designation of NPC, defined by the fact that it is a character of the same level as the PCs and participates in the adventures in a similar fashion to the PCs. Unlike a cohort, a DMPC is not attached to any specific character in the group and follows the same in-game rules as a PC._

If using that definition then we can more helpfully contribute that:

_A DMPC can be a useful addition to a group of adventurers to fill a missing role in the group, or to allow a round-robin style of DMing in which players rotate between running and playing a character. Such a character type however sometimes has problems with a DM who employs such a character as a Mary Sue NPC, and applies favouritism to the DMPC over any of the PCs in the group. On the contrary it is essential that a DM keeps any DMPC in the background of the group and prevents them from overshadowing the characters._

I honestly feel that your definition is useless to any meaningful discussion of this particular form of NPC, which can be a feature in many games. Particularly those (as I've already pointed out) in which players rotate and take turns at being the DM.

The term NPC is broad, DMPC has a specific focus. It is essential to have a term that fills the definition I've provided above. DMPC works. It is not essential to add another pejorative to our vocabulary, especially when the Mary Sue term has already been invented to cover that same niche. Please stop trying to redefine this word in a negative context, you're not helping the discussion.


----------



## Talmun (Nov 17, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Interesting. Why's that?





I can't speak for fusangite, but I always have thought that the PC's are the "stars" and the NPC's are background players.  As Stalker0 said in this recent thread about what makes a good GM:

"The ability to make every player at the table at some point in the game feel cool and special."

I think that if the NPC's are just as important as the PC's it dims that feeling a bit.


----------



## haakon1 (Nov 17, 2006)

Imagicka said:
			
		

> Well, evidently from your experience you had more experience with what I would consider to be an NPC than a DMPC.  I think it goes without saying that any DM who plays a DMPC is a bad DM.
> 
> . . .
> 
> Personally, I’ve never seen a good DMPC.  But that’s the distinction I make.  If it’s a good DMPC, then it’s not a DMPC, it’s an NPC.   . . . as I showed up, he slipped into his old bad habits.




So are you against bad DM's, or are you saying that by definition, any DM who uses party-member NPC and grows found of it must be bad?  If the latter, that's seems a bit broad.

I think the party-member NPC/DM PC is just an option tool, kinda like using or not using mechanical pencils.  I don't see the bearing on the goodness or badness of the DM usng the tool.



			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> If I’m ever forced to have a party NPC more often than not they are nerfed, incompetent, bumbling and far inferior to the other PCs, and realized as being comic-relief with a handful of skills that the PCs are lacking, who’d ultimately get killed at the first chance.




I'm so sick of bumbling sidekick NPCs!  Any DM who uses them is a bad DM, since they're all ripped off the move "Stagecoach".    



			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> Then there are the artists that understand that they are nothing without the audience.
> . . .
> The GM is _nothing_ without the players.  A GM without players is just another unpublished writer.




I think you're right that a GM without players is just another unpublished writer.

But I think you're wrong to implicitly denigrate that.  The reason artists are traditionally "starving" artists?  Because they don't make the stuff for the Holiday Inn sale of the month -- they make what satisfies them as an artist.  Sometimes that sells; sometimes it doesn't.  

If Lord of the Rings wasn't accepted for publication, Tolkien would still be a genius . . . we just wouldn't know it.  It'd be really awesome if you found the manuscript, eh?



			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> Being the DM doesn’t give you the right to do anything you want.  It’s a tool to allow you to be creative as your imagination will allow.  The trick is being imaginative, creative, entertaining enough to help create a story with players.




I disagree with the first part philosophically, but for all practical purposes, I do agree.

I'm a DM because I love creating this stuff, I enjoy the game more than the other folks so I don't get to play if I don't organize it, and to a much lesser extent it's an interesting challenge dealing with the three-ring circus of running a game.  I enjoy giving it as a gift to my players, but if they don't want to play, no big deal.  Somebody else will.  I'll play it how I see it, because to compromise "my artistic integrity" by listening to the idea of "bad DM, you can't like your NPC's and treat them fully realized characters" just wouldn't suit me.

The funny thing is, I know Gygax would diss me for calling D&D art, and I see his point, but to me there does seem to be a similarity . . . not high art, or art with a large audience, but it fills the same needs to create and to express and to imagine, I think.  I dunno, I'm just a singer, not a painter or whatever . . . who's sung to big audiences, small audiences, and myself . . . I just like it and the audience's opinion isn't the primary motivator.


----------



## Illirion (Nov 17, 2006)

Hey, 

I can't say that I'm really a super-experienced DM, but I currently do have an NPC tagging along with the party. In fact, the party's kinda tagging along with him. 

The plot hook I thought of was that they would acompany a noble on a mission to deliver a package (they don't know whats in the package as well as what is going to be done with it). I've statted the noble as an expert focussed on diplomacy, gather information and other such personality skills (party doesn't have a charisma type-character). He also caries a blade, but has a lowsy attack roll and a bad strength score. The pc's are supposed to defend him throughout the journey and once the package has been delivered, he'll eventually leave and just become another friend to the party. He joins in fights only when he's sure he won't get hurt and even then, all he'll probably do is slash around a bit with his sword or fire a random crossbow bolt. 

The players are a combat oriënted bunch, and although they often tell me they also like the non-combat bits, they truly light up everytime there is a combat and they get the chance to pull a cool move.

IMO the 'DMPC' in this situation does not steal the spotlight, hands out or posses information that makes him superior in the aspect of the game that the players want to succeed in the most. 

Is this an example of a DMPC done right or am I still being unfair to the players? 

I personally don't think it's wrong to have an NPC tag along with the party. You see it in books and movies all the time. The only thing that's important is that the DM doesn't see this as a means to be the hero in his own story, but merely a tool that the payers can use to become better heroes themselves. 

I think the problem of the DMPC is that it's being seen as the incarnation of an inequality that exists in the game. The DM never gets to be the hero. He gets to create the world and steer the story, but he'll never actually get to be cool or feel like he's done a good job within the game (there are no in-game variables such as loot, damage or experience that give an indication of how well the DM is doing). The only thing that the DM can get satisfaction out of is the ammount of enjoyment the players had while playing the game (this is a kind of shady variable IMO for it is as difficult to achieve as it is to read).

IMO, people who create a DMPC to compensate for their lack of being able to win/feel cool/accomplish something, aren't supposed to be DMing. This doesn't mean that DMPC's are bad. It just says that they're the most simple (and powerful) tool to abuse and should be used responsably.

Cheers,
Illirion.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 17, 2006)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> I don't understand.  I've never been in an RPG I "resented".  I can only very vaguely remember a game of GURPS that was lame, so I only played once . . . maybe the difference is that most of the people I've played D&D with I either taught the game or reminded them it existed, so we think alike?  I dunno.
> 
> Anyhow . . . the only time I've introduced more powerful characters who actually adventured with the party, as opposed to a walk on conversational/Basil Exposition role, they were old PC's of other players.  Actually, in both cases, these were PC's of players who are DM's, but of their own campaigns, not mine.  I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing in a more powerful character developed in another campaign, but I have some pretty strict rules on incoming characters:
> 1) The character must have been homegrown, from 1st level.  Every single level must always be earned -- if you want a new character, you start at 1st again, not the average of the party.
> ...





I have a very full life and I don't have a lot of time for gaming so when I game I am there to play not watch the NPCs play. I will give you an example of what I mean.

In a Shadowrun game we had searched for a lost team member and when we found him he was in  somekind of weird statsis in his lodge we started reserching how to save him it was a big plot point and took several sessions so when the day came to final resuce him I was psyched.

But the DM brought in some powerful sun shamams who ended up doing everything as we sat there and just watched. We didn't roll dice we didn't do anything but listen to the DM tell us what these uber shamans did. I was not the only player setting there at the table really pissed. If I wanted to just listen to a plot unfold I could have gone to the movies. I play to be part of the action. 

I don't expect to always be on "stage" every second I have spent sessions dead, knocked out, possessed and those I didn't mind. I don't mind listening to other characters doing things even NPCs but in that encounter I described it was blantly obivious that the DM never intend to have any of us actually do anything it was bad DMing and yeah I resented.


As for high level characters you have to be careful that they don't take away from the other players. I was in one game where the DM brought in a seventh level rogue to give us info help us get into a keep and basically help out in the fight. The problem was that our rogue was only second level so when it came time to try and open up the treasure chests the halfling just did so much better at everything that the player felt redunant and later told me that he flet like why was he even there.

There is a reason why The DMG suggest that there not be more than a two level difference in character levels.


----------



## Dagger of Lath (Nov 17, 2006)

Illirion said:
			
		

> Is this an example of a DMPC done right or am I still being unfair to the players?




I can't answer this question neither can anyone else on this board. You need to ask your players. If your players like it, and (just as importantly) you like it, then it is good. Keep it. If people have a problem with it, then it should probably go.

The question of "good" and "bad" in roleplaying games is a tough one. If I play in a game, I want my character's death to be a definite possibility, I hate nothing more than my character being saved when the dice decree his death. My best friend on the other hand won't be happy in any game where his character can die, except at the end of his plot arc. I have my own personal preference in games, so does everyone. A good game is a game that everyone involved in enjoys. (once again, that includes the GM). This will almost always require someone to compromise somewhere.

A decent player is one who will say to the GM "I don't know about this character that you've got with us, he's ruining the game a bit". And a good GM is one who will listen. We had some minor troubles with one of our GMs and their DMPC, so we brought the problem up with him and he solved it. Since then DMPCs have gone over very smoothly in our games.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> What about DMs who feel that their NPCs are AS important to the game as the PCs are?
> 
> To me, that is fine. It's much the same when comparing PCs with other PCs - if one is the star of the show (always) and the others are therefore more like extras or what have you, there's a problem. So, I guess I put DMPCs in with player PCs, and judge them basically the same.way. That said, I think they only really have a legitimate long term place when filling gaps in numbers.




I'm with Fusangite in not playing with those DM's (anymore).  I've had way too many problems with that.  I believe, as a player and as a DM, that the PC's are the stars of the show.  While it might be great to have an episode that revolves around NPC's once in a while, you don't watch Star Trek to see Nameless Red Shirt #23 chatting up Nameless Blue Shirt #11.  You watch the show to see the main characters.  I view gaming in much the same way.  IMNSHO, NPC's are NEVER as important as PC's.  

Dagger of Lath - to me, DMPC and Mary Sue are synonymous.  If the DM is running an NPC that is not stealing the stage from the PC's, then there's no problem.  However, when a DM begins to tailor the campaign around a long term NPC rather than the PC's, then it's a case of DMPC and a bad thing.

To me, it's not even really a case of the NPC being more powerful than the party.  That can work.  However, when the DM begins having that more powerful NPC deal with all or even a large number of the situations in the game, then it's a problem.  An NPC that is central to the plot is fine.  An NPC which resolves every plot is not.  That's where it steps over the line, for me, into the realm of DMPC.

Actually, I'm going to backtrack a bit about the Mary Sue thing.  A DMPC doesn't necessarily have to be better than the PC's.  However, to cross from NPC to DMPC requires that the NPC become the primary actor in many situations.  When NPC's you meet talk to the DMPC first, when the DMPC begins giving orders to the PC's, when treasures found are tailored to the DMPC, then there's a problem.

Otherwise, the character is simply a long term NPC.  That's groovy.

An NPC that starts with the party and stays for a long time isn't necessarily a DMPC.  Filling niches with NPC's doesn't mean that there's a problem.  Filling niches with a DMPC is always a problem.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 17, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm with Fusangite in not playing with those DM's (anymore).  I've had way too many problems with that.  I believe, as a player and as a DM, that the PC's are the stars of the show.  While it might be great to have an episode that revolves around NPC's once in a while, you don't watch Star Trek to see Nameless Red Shirt #23 chatting up Nameless Blue Shirt #11.  You watch the show to see the main characters.  I view gaming in much the same way.  IMNSHO, NPC's are NEVER as important as PC's.



Ah. I was thinking of the terms "NPC", "DMPC" and "important" in different ways than were yourself and fusangite. No wonder I was a bit confused as to exactly what you (and they) meant, and why.


Here's an example of what I mean:







> (. . .) [T]o me, DMPC and Mary Sue are synonymous.



I really didn't have this in mind (and I still don't, for my own interpretation) when I was posting before.




> An NPC that starts with the party and stays for a long time isn't necessarily a DMPC.



See, I pretty much thought they were. Just for one more example of how 'off' my comments perhaps were/seemed, depending on where you happen to be coming from. 


I think I now understand what you (and fusangite) were meaning. Sorry about the misunderstanding there. It's something I find happens quite often online - and not just with me, btw  - different interpretations getting in the way of clear communication. But hey, it all works out in the end, so 's cool.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2006)

Heh, no worries.  

Nothing like a little pedantry between gamers.  It wouldn't be EnWorld if we couldn't abuse the English language.


----------



## danzig138 (Nov 17, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> that the DM just might like to be PART OF THE GAME





Let's see. . . I've been playing for about 19 years now, and DMing for about 18 of those years. The last time I was a Player (not a player in the game, which we all are) was about 3 years ago. Before that, maybe 5-6 years. Let's just say that my time as DM is much greater than my time as Player. 

Here's my thought on the matter. 

Are you running the game? Yes? Then you're a part of the game. In most cases, I think it's probably safe to assume that no one held a gun to your head and said "Hey, you! Yeah, you! Run this game now or I'm gonna blow your stinking head off!" 

I get tired of seeing players on message boards complaining about some things, like DMPCs*, but you know what? I get equally tired of seeing DMs cry in their cheerios about how the players aren't respecting their vision, their work, or following their whims, or are unhappy with the direction of the game. 

Won't somebody please think of the Dungeon Masters? 

Please. 

If you don't like the work involved in running the game, if you don't feel like you're in on the fun,

DON'T RUN THE FREAKING GAME!

If you want to be on the Player side of the Wall of Fear and Ignorance, then what you need to do is go "Hey, so I was thinking, maybe one of you guys should run a game. I'm getting tired of DMing all the time, and I'd like some Player time. Cool?" If it's not cool, then you might need to find another group. 

When you step up to the DM plate, you are a part of the game, but you've accepted that you are a different part of the game than the players are**. Don't cry about it later. 

I've never made a movie, but I still know when one is crap. Just because someone hasn't DMd much or at all doesn't mean they can't criticize the game. 


* I too distinguish between the concept of the DMPC that I see people complain about and an NPC that happens to hang with the party.  


** It's my understanding that there are several games out there now that reduce the divide between player and GM responsibilities. perhaps something like these games would be more appropriate for GMs who feel they aren't part of the game in a player-like fashion enough.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 17, 2006)

Imagicka said:
			
		

> However, if the character makes themselves useful ALL the time, for EVERY encounter.  IS SCENE STEALING.




So if the NPC is constantly with the PC's, helping them fight during encounters they are scene stealing? Sorry but that's a bit of an extreme view and one that I don't agree with. If the NPC is out shining the PC's in those encounters then yeah, I agree. You're implying simply by being useful that they are. 




			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> But when the character is the ONLY one who has the needed knowledge, always has knowledge about the pertinent situation, or is always steering the party in the ‘right’ direction IS SCENE STEALING




So wait a minute, if the party isnt inclined to use divination spells or are the worst clue readers ever, a NPC who tends to steer them in the right direction or a trusted source of information is a scene stealer? Once again we're in disagreement here and that may have to do with playstyles as well. I'm a DM that likes to keep things moving in a forward momentum unless the PC's are having fun going on a tangent then I tend to let things play out. But if my players need to move forward and they need information to do so and seem at a loss I don't think think that there's anything wrong with them consulting with someone that they know knows more than they do. 




			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> Then there are the artists that understand that they are nothing without the audience.  The critics are unfortunately a fact of life, like maggots or mould.  Being the DM doesn’t give you the right to do anything you want.  It’s a tool to allow you to be creative as your imagination will allow.  The trick is being imaginative, creative, entertaining enough to help create a story with players.  The GM is _nothing_ without the players.  A GM without players is just another unpublished writer.




I'm trying to entertain my players. But also as importantly I'm trying to enjoy myself as well. It's a delicate balancing act that needs to be acknowledged and personally as both a DM and player for over 20 years I've seen alot more selfish players than I have selfish DM's. So I tend to cut DM's a bit more slack when it comes to things like this. As a DM, I'd just as soon as NOT run a game at all than to run a game for players that are selfish and really don't take the DM's enjoyment into consideration as well.

Another thing that people aren't taking into consideration is that for me at least, trying to find out what players want in a game is like trying to pull teeth sometimes. The amount of times that I've gotten "I'm good with whatever" or "whatever you want to do" dwarfs the amount of times I've gotten any real input. Even when there's things that they obviously dont like (I've learned to read players for things like that and try to make changes accordingly) they don't tend to speak up. Is it passive aggressive gamer syndrome? because I'm certain that they complain to someone. Basically, what I'm saying is this if you as player dont like the DMPC let the DM know, just straight up "Your DMPC is hogging the spotlight that is rightfully ours", if he doesn't take it into consideration then , seriously, Just walk. Like I said I'd rather not play than to play in a game I'm not having fun with. 

Otherwise coming onto a message board and complaining about it really does nothing to resolve the issue at hand. Unless your DM is on the board as well. The above wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, it's just a general observation.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 17, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> So if the NPC is constantly with the PC's, helping them fight during encounters they are scene stealing? Sorry but that's a bit of an extreme view and one that I don't agree with. If the NPC is out shining the PC's in those encounters then yeah, I agree. You're implying simply by being useful that they are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I think what you are missing is not that the NPC helps in the battle or helps solve the puzzles it's that he does it *all the time * and better than the PCs. That's scene stealing. 

The DMPC when in battle hits harder than the party fighter when he tosses magic he is better than the party mage ect ect its great to have help. But the DMPC should not always be better than the party. 

Its great when an party npc can help solve a puzzle that has the party stumped it helps move the game along but when he solves ot becase he has info that he didn't share or he solves before giving the party a chance to then that is scene stealing.

As for players not speaking up I think part of that is what I like to term players guilt. They know that the dM has put a lot of work into the game and are loathe to complain about it. They don't want to upset their friend.

And sometimes some people feel that a bad game is better than no game and they are afraid that if they complain to the DM they will be kicked out of the group or they have a DM who is oversenstive and reacts badly to any thought that he might have made a bad call or is doing something wrong.

And I have played in a lot of games and have found that yes there are selfish players and because their are more of them than DMs the law of averages say that there will be more  selfish players than DMs but I have seen selfish judgemental DMs so unlike you just because you sit behind the screen I won't cut the DM anymore slack than I will a player.

As I have said before you can't have the game without both DMs and players. I have heard many times that the advice that is you have a bad DM walk away from the game. But it is also true of DMs if you have bad selfish players walk away stop playing the abused DM and walk away.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 17, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I think what you are missing is not that the NPC helps in the battle or helps solve the puzzles it's that he does it *all the time * and better than the PCs. That's scene stealing.
> 
> The DMPC when in battle hits harder than the party fighter when he tosses magic he is better than the party mage ect ect its great to have help. But the DMPC should not always be better than the party.




No, I'm not missing that at all. In fact that was part of my initial post. 



			
				ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Reading this thread makes it seem like D&D Players are just a bunch of whiney children or there really are a lot of BAAAAAAAD DM's out there.
> 
> I've been playing and DMing since the early 80's and almost every DM that I've played under has had NPC's as part of the party. I've never had to deal with a scene stealing NPC, or maybe some of the stuff that people consider scene stealing is stuff that I dont.
> 
> ...




I think that we might actually be in agreement about certain elements of this and just not know it.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 17, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> As for players not speaking up I think part of that is what I like to term players guilt. They know that the dM has put a lot of work into the game and are loathe to complain about it. They don't want to upset their friend.




See that doesnt apply in my case because my freinds would tell me what they want. As of lat I've been basically running games fro people that I've met off the net and message boards , so there's no attachment there. I've made it very clear that input is welcome. 



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> And sometimes some people feel that a bad game is better than no game and they are afraid that if they complain to the DM they will be kicked out of the group or they have a DM who is oversenstive and reacts badly to any thought that he might have made a bad call or is doing something wrong.




But then that's on them for hanging around and being part of something that they arent enjoying. I have a simple motto, if youre doing something for fun and it stops being fun, it's time to stop doing it. 



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> And I have played in a lot of games and have found that yes there are selfish players and because their are more of them than DMs the law of averages say that there will be more  selfish players than DMs but I have seen selfish judgemental DMs so unlike you just because you sit behind the screen I won't cut the DM anymore slack than I will a player.




Fair enough. I'm admittedly biased because I know the work that goes into prepping a game whether good are not and it's something a lot of players seem to take for granted. 



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> As I have said before you can't have the game without both DMs and players. I have heard many times that the advice that is you have a bad DM walk away from the game. But it is also true of DMs if you have bad selfish players walk away stop playing the abused DM and walk away.




Which is something as I have stated before I have absolutely no problem doing. Life is jsut waaaaaay to short to be doing something for fun that isnt actually, well, fun.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 17, 2006)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> So if the NPC is constantly with the PC's, helping them fight during encounters they are scene stealing? Sorry but that's a bit of an extreme view and one that I don't agree with. If the NPC is out shining the PC's in those encounters then yeah, I agree.



Agreed, with 2 exceptions, both from my own experience as a player.  1. The high-level NPC that is in the party due to the party's own actions. (an adventure once consisted of us getting to the skeleton of a stupendous-level Paladin and resurrecting it...he was 23rd-level, we were around 3rd-5th, and let me tell you getting out of there was a whole lot more fun than getting in!)  2. An NPC rolled up just like a PC (same level, etc.) that has just got lucky over time - her base stat rolls were good, her h.p. rolls have always been good, and so on (and rolled in front of us) and who has run with the group long enough to build up some starch.







> So wait a minute, if the party isnt inclined to use divination spells or are the worst clue readers ever, a NPC who tends to steer them in the right direction or a trusted source of information is a scene stealer? Once again we're in disagreement here and that may have to do with playstyles as well. I'm a DM that likes to keep things moving in a forward momentum unless the PC's are having fun going on a tangent then I tend to let things play out. But if my players need to move forward and they need information to do so and seem at a loss I don't think think that there's anything wrong with them consulting with someone that they know knows more than they do.



and have the NPC be wrong sometimes, too...that way, the players won't come to rely on it... 


> I'm trying to entertain my players. But also as importantly I'm trying to enjoy myself as well. It's a delicate balancing act that needs to be acknowledged and personally as both a DM and player for over 20 years I've seen alot more selfish players than I have selfish DM's. So I tend to cut DM's a bit more slack when it comes to things like this. As a DM, I'd just as soon as NOT run a game at all than to run a game for players that are selfish and really don't take the DM's enjoyment into consideration as well.
> 
> Another thing that people aren't taking into consideration is that for me at least, trying to find out what players want in a game is like trying to pull teeth sometimes. The amount of times that I've gotten "I'm good with whatever" or "whatever you want to do" dwarfs the amount of times I've gotten any real input. Even when there's things that they obviously dont like (I've learned to read players for things like that and try to make changes accordingly) they don't tend to speak up. Is it passive aggressive gamer syndrome? because I'm certain that they complain to someone.



Well said, and reflective of my own experiences...except that making changes to suit one player often annoys another, and so the balancing act goes on...

Lanefan


----------



## Dagger of Lath (Nov 17, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Dagger of Lath - to me, DMPC and Mary Sue are synonymous.




My point is that if they are synonymous then the term DMPC needn't be applied to that phenomena, and there are useful definitions of DMPC which cover ground that NPC is too broad to specify.



> To me, it's not even really a case of the NPC being more powerful than the party.




Indeed there should be people in the world vastly more powerful than the PCs. The villain should certainly be more powerful (yet somehow lose at the last minute, or in 1% of games win... just to keep people guessing  )



> Actually, I'm going to backtrack a bit about the Mary Sue thing.  A DMPC doesn't necessarily have to be better than the PC's.  However, to cross from NPC to DMPC requires that the NPC become the primary actor in many situations.  When NPC's you meet talk to the DMPC first, when the DMPC begins giving orders to the PC's, when treasures found are tailored to the DMPC, then there's a problem.




Yes, the rule in our group is that your character can only gain treasure/special abilities/etc when you're a PC. That way people can't drop items for themselves while they're GMing.



> An NPC that starts with the party and stays for a long time isn't necessarily a DMPC.  Filling niches with NPC's doesn't mean that there's a problem.  Filling niches with a DMPC is always a problem.




In my opinion, a DMPC is simply an NPC who travels with the party filling the role of a member of said party. Cohorts operate under specific rules (and belong to one PC above all others) and the terms hireling and henchman have been killed for me by Nodwick  plus they're not all that appropriate if the person isn't hired or henched.

I think we need a term for an NPC who travels with the group in that fashion, so that we can discuss the Mary Sue problems that can crop up and warn people off of them. Or discuss the good ways of including a niche-filler.

Just remember that there are groups out there (like mine) which round-robin GMs and thus everyone in the group needs a PC.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 17, 2006)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Let's see. . . I've been playing for about 19 years now, and DMing for about 18 of those years. The last time I was a Player (not a player in the game, which we all are) was about 3 years ago. Before that, maybe 5-6 years. Let's just say that my time as DM is much greater than my time as Player.
> 
> Here's my thought on the matter.
> 
> ...




Damn straight.


----------



## The_Gneech (Nov 17, 2006)

I dispute that a Mary Sue NPC and a DM-PC are the same thing -- I've seen them both.

In both my regular game, and the regular game of the other DM in the group, there are NPC party members who share in the XP and treasure as if they were PCs, as well as get their occasional moments to shine. In his case, the NPC is a fighter who's dumb as a brick but we wouldn't want to adventure without him. In my case, the NPC is the party cleric, and his primary role is to pull the other players' fat out of the fire -- and they love him for it. (And he's been captured and rescued, taken below 0 hp and given emergency healing, etc., just like any PC.) I think of him as "my character" in the party, but he is just another member of the team.

By contrast, I played in a convention game where the first part of the session was the players (all playing 3rd-level characters) coming upon a scantily-clad barbarian chick who was under assault by bandits. Fair enough, we went rushing to the rescue only to end up standing around watching as she hacked them to pieces, getting a minimum of two attacks per round -- three if she got to use Cleave. The rest of the session was devoted to us following her around as she took on a mission from a sorcerer and recruited us all to go along, wiped out the monsters that attacked us on the way, and of course got to all the neat stuff first.

The DM in question was so clueless that I don't think he ever quite got why I started referring to her as "Mary Sue, the Barbarian," but she was a clear example of the kind of thing that people get so riled up about. However, she was a very different creature from the our big dumb fighter or rescue cleric, respectively.

-The Gneech


----------



## kigmatzomat (Nov 17, 2006)

I'm against DMPCs but I'm coming from a different direction as someone who DMs 99.9999% of the time.  

IMC I ended up with a DMPC due to player decisions.  I had an NPC that was supposed to travel with the players for a while and then go off on his own.  The PCs (and the players) bonded greatly to the NPC and used a combination of arguements (logical, social, economic, and religious) to keep the NPC around.  

I don't know when it became a DMPC but I know when I knew it was.  The party was traveling through a savannah at night (b/c it is horribly hot during the day) and spooked a herd of gazelle at a watering hole.  The injured character was not going to be able to make it to cover before the stampede arrived and I was dreading rolling the dice.  I felt significant relief when it turned out the character was only dropped to -1 hp and not killed.  

And then, with dawning horror, I realized I had a DMPC.  I've hated them as players for the way the DMs showed them favoritism and I realized I hated them as a DM for threatening the impartiality that lets me run the player-centric games my group enjoys.    It felt like I was the umpire at a little league game where my kid was the pitcher.  I kept doubting my calls and being concerned I was giving the DMPC too much leeway.  

So I forced him off-screen where he belongs.  The players still sometimes ask me to bring him back so I know it didn't impact their enjoyment of the game but it could have.   Obviously this DMPC was fine by the players but the potential for favoritism is there and I don't think it is worth it if they can possibly be avoided.


----------



## Imagicka (Nov 17, 2006)

Greetings...



			
				Dagger of Lath said:
			
		

> Imagicka. Your definition of DMPC appears to be somewhere between "any NPC that I dislike" and "Mary Sue".



I wouldn't say that.  I thought I was being quite clear (if not verbose) on _my_ defination of a DMPC. 

I clearly feel that a DMPC is a pejorative and negative term, and should have every such connotations attached to it.  Why?  Because in my experience, it's a DM who's trying to play a PC.  If a DM were to play a character in the party, without any abuse, or any negative aspects to the use of that character; then there really is no need to define this character anything other than an NPC.  Or if you want to go out on limb, and feel it's necessary to come up with a defination of a character that is successfully run by a DM,  call it a party-NPC.  

I have no problems when a DM plays a character (or NPC if you will) who is an active and participating member of the party that doesn't have all the negative connocations that _I_ attach to a DMPC.  



> The term NPC is broad, DMPC has a specific focus. It is essential to have a term that fills the definition I've provided above. DMPC works. It is not essential to add another pejorative to our vocabulary, especially when the Mary Sue term has already been invented to cover that same niche. Please stop trying to redefine this word in a negative context, you're not helping the discussion.



If you want to use DMPC with your definition.  That's fine.  Up until a week ago, I never even heard of the term 'Mary-Sue'.  You stick with your definitions... I'll stick with mine.   



			
				haakon1 said:
			
		

> So are you against bad DM's, or are you saying that by definition, any DM who uses party-member NPC and grows found of it must be bad? If the latter, that's seems a bit broad.



No, what I'm saying is that any DM who plays a party NPC to the point that it detracts from the other players' PCs; either by being statistically superior and hogging the glory in combat situations, or more important (usually by way of plot - not just an important plot-point, but the one that guides the story with little or not input from the players), to the point where the DM is showing a certain amount of nepotism towards their own character.  That they have grown so fond of their character that their character rarely loses. I find this tandamount to roleplaying-masturbation.  Now, if someone considers that to be the defination of a 'Mary-Sue' character, then I might reconsider my definition of a DMPC. 

If however, your a DM that is switching an NPC to a PC, for the purposes of turning over the DMing duties to another person so that the original DM can play a particular character; such as in a round-robin game, without any fear or problem of nepotism or abuse.  I don't see a need to define it as being a DMPC, to me it is just a PC being turned into an NPC. But I also think that the DM who does this should be mindful of playing such an NPC without all the scene-stealing or limelight-basking that a regular player is afforded.  That a DM should play their PC as an NPC avoiding situations where they can take away the glory of the PCs, and just take a backseat to the players.

Have I seen DMs successfully play what the felt was 'their personal character'?  No.  Not particuarily.  Every time I've seen a DM play a character that they felt should be allowed the same amount of 'input' into solving the problems within the gamel; that their character should be just as much 'the hero' as any other character in the party.  It's always felt cheap and hollow.  Because the DM's PC solved our problem for us, stole the spotlight he lit in the first place.  Giving us the lame excuse that he's a party member just like us.  It is a PC?  I don't think so.  I don't think you can play a PC when you sit behind the DM's screen.  Not when you control the game, know all the angles, and hold all the plot cards. 

Have I seen a DM successfully play a character that doesn't solve problems, but at least give us a hint or a nudge to point us in the right direction when we are stumped on finding the right solution?  Who help the party out, but wasn't the party leader, wasn't a problem-solving, wasn't dominating the game play?  Yes.  But I consider that successfully using/playing an NPC. 

Just like Illiron said, _"The DM never gets to be the hero."_ -- Or at least I would say, the DM should never play their NPCs, especially party NPCs, to be the hero. Unless there is a good reason to do so for the benefit of the players. 

Oh, and for the record, I'm always against bad DMs.  GABDMs!  Gamers against bad DMs! 



> I'm so sick of bumbling sidekick NPCs! Any DM who uses them is a bad DM, since they're all ripped off the move "Stagecoach".



Though I have not seen the show, I'd like to watch Entourage.  I was thinking of running a D&D/Ars Magica game where everyone plays a sidekick character to a grand-magus character.  



> The reason artists are traditionally "starving" artists? Because they don't make the stuff for the Holiday Inn sale of the month -- they make what satisfies them as an artist. Sometimes that sells; sometimes it doesn't.
> 
> If Lord of the Rings wasn't accepted for publication, Tolkien would still be a genius . . . we just wouldn't know it. It'd be really awesome if you found the manuscript, eh?



Well, just because an artist makes something he likes doesn't mean that it can't be excellent, brilliant, enjoyable and artistic.  But we are talking about apples and oranges here.  Though most RPG material, especially when we are talking about a campaign that a DM plays out/runs for a number of players IS for public consumption.  Artwork by an artist may not necessarily be for public consumption.  

An artist is only as good as public acceptance will allow.  It's rather a romantic view that an artist such as Vincent van Gogh isn't appreciated within their lifetime.  But that still drove him to suicide didn't it?  Alone and penniless.  That didn't stop Eugène Henri Paul Gauguin from being popular.



> I disagree with the first part philosophically, but for all practical purposes, I do agree.



Well, let me expand on it a little.  Do you think that a DM should be able to do anything he wants?  Railroading the characters into situations that the players don't want to play?  Such as a party who would rather _kick down doors and kill monsters and take their stuff_ be forced into a storyline after storyline where they are told they have to roleplay out situations of political intrigue, or their characters will just be arrested and killed?  Or "Rock Falls, Party Dies!"?  Or situations where Mary-Sue comes and rescues the party again and again?  Or tell a player what his/her character thinks/feels, or tells a player how they should be playing their character? 

Let us say that you are playing a thief, and while you are attending the court of a ruler that has summoned you and the rest of the party to perform some task.  During this audience you decide that your character is bored and, _'is going to pick the pockets of the guards and perhaps the chamberlain and the king.'_ -- Do I as DM say 'No you don't.  You character is to scared to do that here." or do I attempt to convince the player it would be in his best interest to not attempt to do something so foolish because of the attention that they are currently receiving, and lay out the possible ramifications of the character's actions, and still let the player decide? 

I too love being a DM.  I love being a player.  But I specifically love it when a party of players/characters is working together, solving problems... and is in _the zone_.  Where they are really into the game and they are enjoying themselves and having fun.  I love the challenge of being the DM.  It's a different kind of fun than playing a character, but rarely do I find games that suit my style of play. -- But to get back on topic.  I play my NPCs as 'fully realized characters', with modivations, opinions, ideals and goals, just as anyone else would.  But I also believe that I should not be playing a character who is going to steal any of the thunder or glory away from the true players.  That my character (especially if they are a member of the adventuring party) shouldn't be upstaging the players. As a DM, I am there for them to build their story of adventure around my plot.  



> The funny thing is, I know Gygax would diss me for calling D&D art, and I see his point, but to me there does seem to be a similarity . . . not high art, or art with a large audience, but it fills the same needs to create and to express and to imagine, I think. I dunno, I'm just a singer, not a painter or whatever . . . who's sung to big audiences, small audiences, and myself . . . I just like it and the audience's opinion isn't the primary motivator.



Well, I do consider myself an artist.  I paint and draw and take photos... I agree with you.  Roleplaying... like storytelling... is an art.  It's like drawing or painting.  Sure, almost anyone can pick up a paintbrush and paint a picture.  But not everyone is going to be good at it.  But tell me this... doesn't it feel a whole lot better when someone listens to you sing and lets you know that they've enjoyed it?  

Funny story... I was in México meeting my newly born daughter at the time, which I don't resent for one second...well, maybe the one second that I heard that back home, Gary Gygax was sitting around a table with a bunch of my fellow DMs and friends at a gaming/Comic-Con that didn't have any players.  So it was something like 12 DMs all sitting around a table with Gary Gygax just chit-chatting and telling stories.


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 17, 2006)

DMPC is like all things an extension of the DM - bad DM, bad DMPC.

Personally, I use them as my way of interacting with the PCs, at a PC (and not player) level.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 17, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> THe main reasons is DMPCs can steal the players thunder.  They are easier for the DM to plot around and easier for the DM to make better then the PCs.
> 
> I do agree that a DMPC can be done well and have seen it.  But I know more often DM's screw it up.




That's my explanation right there.

Honestly, it's not always bad, but when it's bad it's bad enough to color the whole concept.

My current GM constantly has a DMPC with us, and it is a pain in the ass to constantly have him chime in during the planning sessions with what is clearly "The Plan" or ordering us around because (like all of his tag-alongs) he (or she) is a plain-talking, common sense straight-shooter who understand things better than the PC's.


----------



## cildarith (Nov 18, 2006)

I frequently have NPC's accompany the party as full-time members, but... NPC party members really do need to stay out of the planning sessions and every major (and most minor) decisions about party actions.  They should operate only in a support role and otherwise be as unobtrusive as possible.  They should never be more powerful than the rest of party (equal is fine), nor should they be integral parts to any plot or story-arc in your camapaign.  If these simple suggestions are adhered to, the concept works just fine.  Step outside these boundaries and they can be real problems.  IMHO, YMMV, yadda, yadda...


----------



## Wolv0rine (Nov 18, 2006)

Through all my years of playing, two DMs spring to mind who fit this thread.

The first I gamed with nearly a decade ago, and I'm almost surprised the character's name wasn't *actually* Mary Sue, it was that bad.  Oh neat, he's young, he's pretty, he's the most powerful wizard in the universe, and he's our boss.  Did I say Neat?  We canned him from the group after half a dozen sessions (would have been sooner, but we enjoyed tearing down his little excuse for a campaign first, because he'd just ticked us off that much).  If this guy had been my only experience, I'd still be in the group that says DMPC=teh suxxors.

Then I gamed with Ralts.  A lot can be said about playing in a game Ralts runs, but the most brief is "If you can, do it.  If you can't, damn I'm sorry".  
Ralts ran a DMPC through nearly the entire length of the YotZ playtest game on IRC.  The character was originally a normal PC, but his player started missing games (Ralts typically NPC'ed PCs whose player was abscent).  He group noted that the character (Greg) was pretty friggin' cool as Ralts played him more and more.  Eventually the player just had to drop from the game, but the group en masse decided we wanted Greg to stick around, and that we liked the way Ralts RPed the character so much that we wanted him to become Ralts' PC (even though he was the GM).
Greg was a vital, loved, and involved fully-fledged member of the party.  He was in no way an NPC, he was a PC as much as our characters were.  We risked the entire party to save his life more than once, he had an ongoing romance with one PC, friendships and conflicts, a role in the group.  If Ralts ever used Greg as a plot device, he did so well enough that it was never observable.  Greg was completely indestinguishable from any of the other PCs.  Ralts actually tried to give the character up once, and we wouldn't allow him to.
That was the experience that put me firmly in the position that DMPCs can be done right, and are thus a viable option.  If your DM can multitask his brain well enough to treat his DMPC AS a PC and not an NPC, then you welcome that character with open arms.

The short version is that it depends on the skill and creativity of your DM.  But really, without a good, concrete example (above) that's a cop out response.  It's true, but doesn't mean anything unless you can show how it works.


----------



## haakon1 (Nov 18, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> I dispute that a Mary Sue NPC and a DM-PC are the same thing -- I've seen them both.
> 
> In both my regular game, and the regular game of the other DM in the group, there are NPC party members who share in the XP and treasure as if they were PCs, as well as get their occasional moments to shine. In his case, the NPC is a fighter who's dumb as a brick but we wouldn't want to adventure without him. In my case, the NPC is the party cleric, and his primary role is to pull the other players' fat out of the fire -- and they love him for it. (And he's been captured and rescued, taken below 0 hp and given emergency healing, etc., just like any PC.) I think of him as "my character" in the party, but he is just another member of the team.
> 
> ...




This makes a lot of sense to me.  The distinction, essentially, is bad DM's versus good DM's.

Focusing on the use -- or not -- of party member NPC's is a red herring.


----------



## haakon1 (Nov 18, 2006)

Imagicka said:
			
		

> I have no problems when a DM plays a character (or NPC if you will) who is an active and participating member of the party that doesn't have all the negative connocations that _I_ attach to a DMPC.
> . . .
> Have I seen a DM successfully play a character that doesn't solve problems, but at least give us a hint or a nudge to point us in the right direction when we are stumped on finding the right solution?  Who help the party out, but wasn't the party leader, wasn't a problem-solving, wasn't dominating the game play?  Yes.  But I consider that successfully using/playing an NPC.




OK.  I think we more or less agree, terminology aside.



			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> Well, just because an artist makes something he likes doesn't mean that it can't be excellent, brilliant, enjoyable and artistic.




Of course.  All I'm saying is popularity and genius are not the same thing, and creators don't generally create to fit someone else's taste.  De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum, Ars Artis Gratia, sell outs are no good, etc.



			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> An artist is only as good as public acceptance will allow.  It's rather a romantic view that an artist such as Vincent van Gogh isn't appreciated within their lifetime.  But that still drove him to suicide didn't it?  Alone and penniless.  That didn't stop Eugène Henri Paul Gauguin from being popular.




We're way off topic, but I completely disagree that talent = public acceptance.  That would imply Michael Jackson was one of the greatest musicians of the 20th Century . . . however, his work won't be studied seriously by musicians/academics centuries from now, whereas some other obscure folks, like Charles Ives, might well be.



			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> Do you think that a DM should be able to do anything he wants?  Railroading the characters into situations that the players don't want to play?  Such as a party who would rather _kick down doors and kill monsters and take their stuff_ be forced into a storyline after storyline where they are told they have to roleplay out situations of political intrigue, or their characters will just be arrested and killed?  Or "Rock Falls, Party Dies!"?  Or situations where Mary-Sue comes and rescues the party again and again?  Or tell a player what his/her character thinks/feels, or tells a player how they should be playing their character?




The DM is always right is rule #1 of D&D, right at the top of the intro page to the 1st Edition PHB.  WOTC's attempts to say things like character sheets should be audited for the proper WOTC approved amount of treasure put me in a fundamentalist frame of mind.

Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of bad DM's, learning DM's, DM's who make mistakes, etc.



			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> Let us say that you are playing a thief, and while you are attending the court of a ruler that has summoned you and the rest of the party to perform some task.  During this audience you decide that your character is bored and, _'is going to pick the pockets of the guards and perhaps the chamberlain and the king.'_ -- Do I as DM say 'No you don't.  You character is to scared to do that here." or do I attempt to convince the player it would be in his best interest to not attempt to do something so foolish because of the attention that they are currently receiving, and lay out the possible ramifications of the character's actions, and still let the player decide?




Hmmm, I might give some advice, or I might just roll some dice and see if it worked, then roll a lot more dice to see if anyone noticed, as the other players snickered and said things like, "Chris, what the bleep are you doing?"  Mostly, it would depend on whether I thought the player was serious/knew what he was doing, or not.  It would also be influenced by whether I had a good idea of who the observers were/had time to create them for combat if things went south.



			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> I too love being a DM.  I love being a player.  But I specifically love it when a party of players/characters is working together, solving problems... and is in _the zone_.  Where they are really into the game and they are enjoying themselves and having fun.  I love the challenge of being the DM.  It's a different kind of fun than playing a character, but rarely do I find games that suit my style of play. -- But to get back on topic.  I play my NPCs as 'fully realized characters', with modivations, opinions, ideals and goals, just as anyone else would.  But I also believe that I should not be playing a character who is going to steal any of the thunder or glory away from the true players.  That my character (especially if they are a member of the adventuring party) shouldn't be upstaging the players. As a DM, I am there for them to build their story of adventure around my plot.




I look at it more from an in-game point of view.  Any NPC can potential join an adventure, and old PC's don't disappear, they become non-adventurer NPCs that I can pull in the story as it fits.

This probably comes from two things:
1) Playing with really small groups.  Grouping up, most of the time we had two players and a DM (the other guy's brother).  Restarting D&D after a long hiatus, it was me DMing, one experienced player, and a brand new player; that's how it was for 2 years or so.  Not having NPCs in the party is simply not an option with that size group, so it just never struck me as a bizarre practice.

2) My campaign world has been in continuous use for a decade, with I think 4 different parties using it.  I try to give it depth in the NPCs.  My village descriptions tend to tell the name of quite a few people, plus levels and classes of most adults.  I want it to feel more like a world than a game . . . so if PC's want NPC Harry to help them with the Temple of Whatzits, and NPC Harry has the inclination to join in, I'm not majorly worried about it.




			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> Well, I do consider myself an artist.  I paint and draw and take photos... I agree with you.  Roleplaying... like storytelling... is an art.  It's like drawing or painting.  Sure, almost anyone can pick up a paintbrush and paint a picture.  But not everyone is going to be good at it.  But tell me this... doesn't it feel a whole lot better when someone listens to you sing and lets you know that they've enjoyed it?




Sure.  That's actually more rewarding than doing big concerts (I haven't done those in decades), because it's more personal.



			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> Funny story... I was in México meeting my newly born daughter at the time, which I don't resent for one second...well, maybe the one second that I heard that back home, Gary Gygax was sitting around a table with a bunch of my fellow DMs and friends at a gaming/Comic-Con that didn't have any players.  So it was something like 12 DMs all sitting around a table with Gary Gygax just chit-chatting and telling stories.




Cool.  Let's all wish him good health.

BTW, I don't think we're arguing, just chatting about stuff we all love in a slightly argumentative geeky way.  Sorry if anybody is upset.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 18, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> *Everyone who plays D&D should spend half of their time running games as a DM.*




I couldn't disagree more.

Everyone should do what they find fun.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 18, 2006)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> My current GM constantly has a DMPC with us, and it is a pain in the ass to constantly have him chime in during the planning sessions with what is clearly "The Plan" or ordering us around because (like all of his tag-alongs) he (or she) is a plain-talking, common sense straight-shooter who understand things better than the PC's.




I once ran a game where an NPC joined the party.  He'd chime in when they were planning and all that.

But the players knew that I was playing this NPC with an agenda.  He'd suggest things that he wanted to do.  (He was Evil, and the PCs were Good, and one of them had a Detect Evil ability - he'd always ask, "Do I detect any Evil around here?"  I'd reply, just that NPC.)  The players knew that his "suggestions" were Evil ones, and I was just trying to tempt them into doing Evil stuff.

That's what he was there for - this guy is obviously evil, but he's helping you out to further his own, Evil agenda.  How long do you want to keep him around?  As much as he's helping you, you're helping him.


----------



## Imagicka (Nov 18, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I think what you are missing is not that the NPC helps in the battle or helps solve the puzzles it's that he does it *all the time * and better than the PCs. That's scene stealing.
> 
> The DMPC when in battle hits harder than the party fighter when he tosses magic he is better than the party mage ect ect its great to have help. But the DMPC should not always be better than the party.



Thanks for clarifying that for me... That's what I get for not proof-reading my own stuff.  But hey, I'm trying to write this stuff while I'm doing my job.  

Your analogy reminds me of a set of books I used to read as a kid.  Doc Savage. 







> Doc Savage, whose real name is "Clark Savage, Jr.", also known as "the Man of Bronze", is a physician, surgeon, scientist, adventurer, inventor, explorer, researcher and musician — a renaissance man. A team of scientists (assembled by his father) trained his mind and body to near-superhuman abilities almost from birth, giving him great strength and endurance, a photographic memory, mastery of the martial arts, and vast knowledge of the sciences. Doc is also a master of disguise and an excellent imitator of voices, though he admits to having trouble with women's voices. "He rights wrongs and punishes evildoers." Dent described the hero as a mix of Sherlock Holmes' deductive abilities, Tarzan's outstanding physical abilities, Craig Kennedy's scientific education, and Abraham Lincoln's goodness. Dent actually described Doc Savage as manifesting "Christliness."
> 
> Doc made everything look easy. In one story, "his hand drifted out at lightning speed." It sounds like an oxymoron, but Doc's fans knew what it meant.



All of his friends were the best at everything... Ham... the world's best lawyer... next to Doc Savage...  Monk... the world's best chemist... next to Doc Savage... Johnny... world's best archaeologist and geologist... next to... you guessed it... Doc Savage. -- I kept asking myself, _*Why the heck are these guys hanging around this guy?  Better yet, why is this guy hanging around with THEM?*_ 



> As for players not speaking up I think part of that is what I like to term players guilt. They know that the dM has put a lot of work into the game and are loathe to complain about it. They don't want to upset their friend.
> 
> And sometimes some people feel that a bad game is better than no game and they are afraid that if they complain to the DM they will be kicked out of the group or they have a DM who is oversenstive and reacts badly to any thought that he might have made a bad call or is doing something wrong.



Yeah... that's always a problem I've always faced too.  Then I started asking the players what they thought about the game.  I'd ask them before, when I'd invite them into my game, or when we're making characters.  Then I'd ask them a few sessions into the game.  If I felt the game could allow it, I'd ask everyone together, at the table.  If I needed to, I'd ask them separately.  I want my players to have a good time... and if that means changing the style of the game so they get more of what they like... more dungeon-crawling... more roleplaying... more politics... I'm happy to try and give that to them.  Because some of my players will sit there and say 'oh, everything is fine... I'm having a good time...' -- I don't understand why people think I'm going to kick them out of the game because they aren't having fun.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 18, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> I dispute that a Mary Sue NPC and a DM-PC are the same thing -- I've seen them both.
> 
> In both my regular game, and the regular game of the other DM in the group, there are NPC party members who share in the XP and treasure as if they were PCs, as well as get their occasional moments to shine. In his case, the NPC is a fighter who's dumb as a brick but we wouldn't want to adventure without him. In my case, the NPC is the party cleric, and his primary role is to pull the other players' fat out of the fire -- and they love him for it. (And he's been captured and rescued, taken below 0 hp and given emergency healing, etc., just like any PC.) I think of him as "my character" in the party, but he is just another member of the team.
> 
> ...




Me, I'd call the first two NPC's and be done with it.  If there is a character run by the DM and there are no problems around the table, then that character is an NPC.  There can be short term and long term NPC's, but, in the end, they are still just non-player characters.

A DMPC is a term which specifically points to problem NPC's.  Trying to use the term in a non-perjorative sense just seems counter productive to me since NPC works perfectly well.  True, a DMPC doesn't have to be a Mary Sue - more powerful and effective than the PC's.  But, a DMPC has to be a problem character otherwise, it's just an NPC.

When playing round robin DM's, turning a PC into an NPC is fine.  The DM's character simply fades to the background and becomes a whole lot quieter for the duration.  However, when the DM starts having the DMPC order the party around, telling (not suggesting, telling) the party what the best idea is, then its a problem.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Nov 18, 2006)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Everyone should do what they find fun.



Yeah, I think that wording is over the top but the underlying sentiment - that every player should understand the increased difficulty of dming - is pretty valid.

A player without a grasp of what being a dm is about is a potential problem player.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 18, 2006)

*will just accept the fact he's not going to use NPCs mixed in with the PCs when they are adventuring.*


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Nov 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Me, I'd call the first two NPC's and be done with it.  If there is a character run by the DM and there are no problems around the table, then that character is an NPC.  There can be short term and long term NPC's, but, in the end, they are still just non-player characters.
> 
> A DMPC is a term which specifically points to problem NPC's.  Trying to use the term in a non-perjorative sense just seems counter productive to me since NPC works perfectly well.  True, a DMPC doesn't have to be a Mary Sue - more powerful and effective than the PC's.  But, a DMPC has to be a problem character otherwise, it's just an NPC.
> 
> When playing round robin DM's, turning a PC into an NPC is fine.  The DM's character simply fades to the background and becomes a whole lot quieter for the duration.  However, when the DM starts having the DMPC order the party around, telling (not suggesting, telling) the party what the best idea is, then its a problem.




So, you're saying you wouldn't have a specific categoriztion for an NPC who travels with the party, gains one share of xp and loot, and gains whatever special benefits the rest of the party does (ie: free room and board at the town they rescued)?


----------



## rounser (Nov 19, 2006)

Fortunately, the way to get rid of DMPCs is easy: have all the real PCs attack them at once (have an unscrupulous and annoyed member of the party set them up if there are paladins or other ethical characters involved).  The DM is then forced to choose between the campaign and their Mary Sue.  

Even if the DMPC teleports away, or indulges in similar deus ex machina to avoid both TPK and the DMPC dying, it's a wakeup call that's difficult to ignore (although some DMs will throw a tantrum over why the players are "ruining the game").


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 19, 2006)

Back in my first year of DMing I had a DMPC. Fortunately I came to my senses when I realized that the players were waiting to see what the character would do before doing anything themselves.

First I had him make a few _really_ bad decisions, then, when that didn't work, I smashed him flat with a five ton block of stone. (After having him flip a coin before deciding which way to go.)

Even then the players didn't believe that I had really killed him until they found the room directly below the fallen stone, the ceiling cracked and broken, and bits of the DMPC oozing out of the cracks. 

The DM is already the director, producer, and walking scenery. He does not need to be the star as well. (The worst I have ever encountered was a Storyteller in a LARP, he eventually had to be kicked out of the game that he had helped start.  Dealing with that is one of the major reasons that I no longer play any LARPs.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 19, 2006)

*still could use players in his Thursday IRC chat game!* If only because I promise no DMPCs at the moment!


----------



## The_Gneech (Nov 19, 2006)

o/`
ToMAYto!
ToMAHto!
PoTAYto!
PoTAHto!
Let's call the whole thing off...
o/`

What we've got here now, is group A saying that "all DMPCs" are what group B calls "Mary Sue NPCs" or "bad DMPCs", and what group B call "DMPCs" or "good DMPCs" are actually just "NPCs", whereas group B is saying that "DMPCs" are different from NPCs as they gain full treasure and XP and are basically the DM's character in the game whereas an NPC just means "any character in the game that isn't run by a player."

This is why there's so much confusion on the issue -- people won't agree on terminology!

So when you ask people, "explain why DMPCs are bad to me," it seems you're going to have to define your terms at the outset. Everybody seems to be in agreement that "Mary Sue NPCs"/"Bad DMPC" are bad, and most people seem to be more or less fine with "good DMPCs/NPCs that happen to get XP and treasure" -- they just can't agree on what to call 'em.

-The Gneech


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 19, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> o/`
> ToMAYto!
> ToMAHto!
> PoTAYto!
> ...



*two* sides?   

 

Seriously, you are missing the folks who call npcs that the players control in combat DMPCs, the people who are not OK with npcs that have full party status (as opposed to hirelings/cohorts), people who think that mary sue dmpcs are an ok thing because Gandalf worked.... I haven't the time to list all the overlapping and opposing sides that come up in this topic, but I'd say there are very real disagreements on what is an OK way to play an NPC that are confused but not caused by the terminology problems. 

Its more a "PotAto, patAHto, Tamale, Salami" sort of argument.


----------



## Goddess FallenAngel (Nov 19, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> So when you ask people, "explain why DMPCs are bad to me," it seems you're going to have to define your terms at the outset.




Honestly, until I stated this thread, I didn't realize there were so many different interpretations of said term.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Nov 19, 2006)

Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> Honestly, until I stated this thread, I didn't realize there were so many different interpretations of said term.



Lord knows, it seems to *Me* that "DMPC" pretty much lays itself out there and defines itself.  "A PC run by the DM" where the term PC itself opens up it's own can of worms.  To me, a PC is a character on equal ground with the player's PCs (in every way, including but not limited to loot, XP, involvement in planning, spotlight time, and full-on RP and three-dimensionality of said character).
But hey, people seem to have the weirdest criteria for how they define a term.


----------



## Scarbonac (Nov 20, 2006)

Imagicka said:
			
		

> Doc Savage. All of his friends were the best at everything... Ham... the world's best lawyer... next to Doc Savage...  Monk... the world's best chemist... next to Doc Savage... Johnny... world's best archaeologist and geologist... next to... you guessed it... Doc Savage. -- I kept asking myself, **Why the heck are these guys hanging around this guy?  Better yet, why is this guy hanging around with THEM?**




Because they are friends and brothers in arms. In fact, if you'll  remember, Doc always called them "Brothers".


'Sides, Doc couldn't be everywhere at once and do everything himself...


----------



## Dykstrav (Nov 20, 2006)

As a DM, I've never felt the need to join the characters in the party on the quests. In my opinion, the DM gets to play every other character in the entire world. I get to make all the characters I want, at the levels I want and with the abilities I want. Besides, playing the monsters and villains has a certain dramatic charm that you just don't get from playing a heroic character.

Whenever a party role isn't being filled, I generally allow the characters to pick up Joe Adventurer in the tavern and simply let a player run two characters. This is with the understanding that the character gets to leave if a new player joins and they have to play it cool (i.e., no heroic suicides to save their other character or any of that BS). This system has always worked for me.

DMPC's as described in this thread are one of the big reasons I didn't/don't like Forgotten Realms games. The setting has its strong points and areas for improvement, like any other setting. But virtually every FR game I've ever seen has included either Elminster or Drizzt as DMPC's, whom the PC's are essentially working for as cohorts. A 2E Undermountain campaign I played was inexplicably lead by Elminster, who blasted the critters with magic while we basically hauled the treasure out of Undermountain for him. I don't call that game a 'Monty Haul' because we were essentially moving men for a steady supply of chests and sacks stuffed with gold and gems.


----------



## Goddess FallenAngel (Nov 20, 2006)

Dykstrav said:
			
		

> Whenever a party role isn't being filled, I generally allow the characters to pick up Joe Adventurer in the tavern and simply let a player run two characters. This is with the understanding that the character gets to leave if a new player joins and they have to play it cool (i.e., no heroic suicides to save their other character or any of that BS). This system has always worked for me.




What happens if a player doesn't want to play 2 characters? Personally, I detest it. I feel my attention is split over trying to RP two different personalities. For that same reason, I don't allow more than one PC per player at the same time when I DM (if one PC is off doing something else, that is fine, but only 1 travels with the party at any given time).



> DMPC's as described in this thread are one of the big reasons I didn't/don't like Forgotten Realms games. The setting has its strong points and areas for improvement, like any other setting. But virtually every FR game I've ever seen has included either Elminster or Drizzt as DMPC's, whom the PC's are essentially working for as cohorts. A 2E Undermountain campaign I played was inexplicably lead by Elminster, who blasted the critters with magic while we basically hauled the treasure out of Undermountain for him. I don't call that game a 'Monty Haul' because we were essentially moving men for a steady supply of chests and sacks stuffed with gold and gems.




That's bad DMming. It has nothing to do with the world - I've had the same issue in a homebrew setting, where the DM had the super-powerful NPC of the world ordering us around. (Didn't stay in that game long.) Blaming the setting because your DM made the party cohorts to the NPCS is sorta like blaming Toyota because someone who owned one was a bad driver and damaged your car.


----------



## Slife (Nov 20, 2006)

Does having a tagalong NPC healbot cleric (none of the PC is a healer) count?


----------



## Dykstrav (Nov 20, 2006)

Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> What happens if a player doesn't want to play 2 characters?
> 
> That's bad DMming. It has nothing to do with the world...




Then I adjust the adventure to accomodate the party size. Most of my players have been willing to play 2 characters because of a perception that a smaller party size equals smaller XP rewards and less treasure (somewhat true, but there's less characters to divide it amongst, so I take whichever route the players prefer).

Hence why I said 'Forgotten Realms _games_,' not 'the Forgotten Realms _setting_.' There's been some very good adventures published for FR, such as the Bloodstone Pass series and Undermountain.


----------



## Goddess FallenAngel (Nov 20, 2006)

Dykstrav said:
			
		

> Hence why I said 'Forgotten Realms _games_,' not 'the Forgotten Realms _setting_.' There's been some very good adventures published for FR, such as the Bloodstone Pass series and Undermountain.




I guess I took it as the setting - I've played FR games for years, and have never met any of the 'established NPCs' in the games, and I've never played through any of those modules (although I do hear good things about many of them, and have ran one of the Bloodstone Pass series in my game). I have heard a lot of people with the same complaint you have, and most blame the setting, so I guess I just heard that automatically, sorry.  I still liken it to how the DM takes the setting and runs it for his games, as opposed to the setting itself.


----------



## Lilaxe (Nov 20, 2006)

I played in a game where the DM had a NPC that he played basically like it was his own PC. This was a pretty bad DM, where every encounter would leave half the party unconcious, but his "PC" was never one of them. This "PC" did save the day all the time, and to top that off, in a world he had created and designed, for some reason many of the magic items were "best used" by his "PC" as he knew what classes made the party up.

Luckily I moved on and am in a much better, funner group now 

So, DM "PC's" can really ruin the fun and enjoyment of the actual PCs - especially when the DM designs it so his PC is needed and equiped from our adventures. It makes playing almost pointless, really.


----------



## Goddess FallenAngel (Nov 20, 2006)

Slife said:
			
		

> Does having a tagalong NPC healbot cleric (none of the PC is a healer) count?




In my opinion, not unless s/he is stealing the spotlight from the PCs, no. (And I don't call healing when none of the PCs have healing capabilities Scene Stealing. )


----------



## Dragonbait (Nov 20, 2006)

A DMPC stole my lucky charms.


----------



## Imagicka (Nov 20, 2006)

Greetings...

Stole your lucky charms?!?  Yellow-Grubs, Pink-Slugs, Green-Maggots!?  They're magicaly disgusting! 



			
				ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> So, you're saying you wouldn't have a specific categoriztion for an NPC who travels with the party, gains one share of xp and loot, and gains whatever special benefits the rest of the party does (ie: free room and board at the town they rescued)?



I know I don't.  Hussar put it more elegantly than I ever did.  I totally agree with what he said.  I personally don't have a need to classify a party-member NPC, because if the DM is playing as such that he needs to be classified as something _other_ than just an NPC.  That is the point where it starts becoming a problem for the players, and _I _start throwing around the term 'DMPC'.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Fortunately, the way to get rid of DMPCs is easy: have all the real PCs attack them at once (have an unscrupulous and annoyed member of the party set them up if there are paladins or other ethical characters involved).  The DM is then forced to choose between the campaign and their Mary Sue.



Well, it never works like that.  At least in my experience.  Even if the alignments of the party members would allow it, and all the players were willing to attack and kill this character.  Even when there is in-game justification for it.  The DM would always find a way to either say the attempts fail, or the attackers become the victim of the fudging DM who doesn't want his Mary-Sue to die. Even to the point of where the game breaks down.  

Whenever I've seen someone (or I have myself) attempted to snooker the DM into losing his DMPC, through any number of methods, it usually ended up badly for the player.  Such as... I once framed the DMPC for murder by placing evidence.  Put stolen objects into his backpack.  Commited crimes in his name (and appearance.)  Even when I thought the situation was fool-proof, and I kept the DM in the dark by doing actions to prepare for it, and only when I spring the trap does the DM realize what I'm doing in-game.  The DM still would do something to weasel out of the situation. 



> Even if the DMPC teleports away, or indulges in similar deus ex machina to avoid both TPK and the DMPC dying, it's a wakeup call that's difficult to ignore (although some DMs will throw a tantrum over why the players are "ruining the game").



Exactly, so I would suggest anyone attempting to do such a thing, get all the players behind the action (not just one person -- because the DM can usually always replace one player). Also, do it for petty reasons such as to get revenge on the DM, or just to screw with them and have fun doing it.  Otherwise, plan and expect failure.  



			
				Dykstrav said:
			
		

> As a DM, I've never felt the need to join the characters in the party on the quests. In my opinion, the DM gets to play every other character in the entire world. I get to make all the characters I want, at the levels I want and with the abilities I want. Besides, playing the monsters and villains has a certain dramatic charm that you just don't get from playing a heroic character.



Which I think is probably the healthiest of attitudes.  



> Whenever a party role isn't being filled, I generally allow the characters to pick up Joe Adventurer in the tavern and simply let a player run two characters. This is with the understanding that the character gets to leave if a new player joins and they have to play it cool (i.e., no heroic suicides to save their other character or any of that BS). This system has always worked for me.



This is what I like to do myself too.  My players become too worried when I start playing a party-member-NPCs, because they (rightfully so) believe that they could be double-crossed by this NPC. -- That's why I like to give out NPCs to the players and have them play secondary characters, and get them to play the evil betrayers.  But that only works a couple of times too, before the players catch on.  But they always jump at the chance to play a throw-away character. 



> DMPC's as described in this thread are one of the big reasons I didn't/don't like Forgotten Realms games. The setting has its strong points and areas for improvement, like any other setting. But virtually every FR game I've ever seen has included either Elminster or Drizzt as DMPC's, whom the PC's are essentially working for as cohorts. A 2E Undermountain campaign I played was inexplicably lead by Elminster, who blasted the critters with magic while we basically hauled the treasure out of Undermountain for him. I don't call that game a 'Monty Haul' because we were essentially moving men for a steady supply of chests and sacks stuffed with gold and gems.



I think if done right, the 'gandalf-charlie boss' trick can be pulled off correctly. Where the players have to work for a powerful 'charlie' who sends them on missions.  The secret to success there is never let the PCs rely on gandalf for his firepower, he shouldn't be there to save their bacon.  I usually portray the character as having his own problems and situations requiring his attention.  But that's a discussion for another thread.



			
				Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> What happens if a player doesn't want to play 2 characters? Personally, I detest it. I feel my attention is split over trying to RP two different personalities. For that same reason, I don't allow more than one PC per player at the same time when I DM (if one PC is off doing something else, that is fine, but only 1 travels with the party at any given time).



You know, I've never had that problem.  But I tend to run my games like Ars Magica.  Which is a system where most players have one powerful central 'mage' character.  Then that player could have a secondary 'companion' character or a 'grog' character.  Whenever your main character is off on an adventure, or spending months researching a new spell or making some magickal item.  Then they can pull out their secondary character.  It works best when I can focus the aventure around a particular player's character.  One of the best adventures I had run in Ars Magica was the one where there were 5 magi, and one grog, and the story revolved around the grog.  The mages were tripping over themselves to make the grog the hero of the story.  It was great fun.

I like to get the group's first characters up to nice mid-to-high level.  At which time they usually either way to play a secondary character or are quite happy to play a throw-away character for an adventure or two.  That's if they don't think they have their plate full with familiars and cohorts and such.  -- If a player doesn't want to play a second character, then hopefully there are at least three other people around the table that are willing to play the character.  If it's important enough, then I'll step up and take the character if I have to. 



> That's bad DMming. It has nothing to do with the world - I've had the same issue in a homebrew setting, where the DM had the super-powerful NPC of the world ordering us around. (Didn't stay in that game long.) Blaming the setting because your DM made the party cohorts to the NPCS is sorta like blaming Toyota because someone who owned one was a bad driver and damaged your car.



So, what made your 'charlie' experience a bad one?  I find that some players don't mind working for a gandalf-charlie, as long as they are well paid, and they are interested in doing the work.  Not to mention, I try and give the 'down-time' as well as to explore their own characters' plots/stories.

The only thing I find is that a lot of players don't like it when you play established NPCs.  Either it's because the DM never measures up to the concept the player had of the NPC in fiction or from another DM.  Or they just don't like the cliché.  Or it just felt lazy of the DM to take something from the book, without making an effort to do it himself.


----------



## Dragonbait (Nov 20, 2006)

Imagicka said:
			
		

> Stole your lucky charms?!?  Yellow-Grubs, Pink-Slugs, Green-Maggots!?  They're magicaly disgusting!



Someone watches Tiny Toons.

Anyways, the topic..

My 2cp: To me, a DMPC is one that was created by the DM to be part of the adventuring group, typically from the start of the campaign. They travel with them all the time, they gain XP with them, fight by their side, gain some treasure, and so forth, just like any other PC. If an NPC joins the group for one or two sessions, it does not really count as a DMPC INHO.


----------



## Goddess FallenAngel (Nov 20, 2006)

Imagicka said:
			
		

> You know, I've never had that problem.  But I tend to run my games like Ars Magica.  Which is a system where most players have one powerful central 'mage' character.  Then that player could have a secondary 'companion' character or a 'grog' character.  Whenever your main character is off on an adventure, or spending months researching a new spell or making some magickal item.  Then they can pull out their secondary character.




I have no issues with players having multiple PCs in the game world - just multiple PCs in the party at the same exact time. I'm getting from your post that you mean the same thing?



			
				Imagicka said:
			
		

> So, what made your 'charlie' experience a bad one?  I find that some players don't mind working for a gandalf-charlie, as long as they are well paid, and they are interested in doing the work.  Not to mention, I try and give the 'down-time' as well as to explore their own characters' plots/stories.




Basically because I am still not sure why the PCs were with this character - since we never did anything. Anything that we fought our weapons and spells were useless against (only the 'charlie's' abilities could effect it). All the puzzles we encountered only the 'charlie' could solve. We got to the point of the PCs - in character - playing cards during battles while the DM rolled dice against himself. It didn't take him long to realize that we weren't lifting a finger. (DM: "PC1 - it's your Init." PC1: "I raise." PC2: "My init is next. I fold, too rich for my blood.")

Now, I'm not saying that it can't be done well - I believe that it can - but that particular experience was not done well.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 20, 2006)

Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> I have no issues with players having multiple PCs in the game world - just multiple PCs in the party at the same exact time.



Where I'm just the opposite; I'd rather they have two, because then I don't feel guilty about leaving them with nothing to do for the night when I kill one off...   Same reason I like to have at least one NPC in the group...

Lanefan


----------



## Ozmar (Nov 20, 2006)

Transit said:
			
		

> If your time as a DM is close to zero, if you're playing and playing and NEVER doing any of the work, then you've got NO RIGHT complaining about how a DM runs his game, or the fact that he chooses to let his or her own PC join in the fun.




QFT. I absolutely _hate_ DMPCs (and by DMPC, I mean any NPC who is more awesome than the PCs and arrogantly makes us feel like pathetic losers), but I have to agree with what Transit says here. A DM has the right to run the game he wants to run. (Of course, the players have the right to not play... or to complain, I suppose... but the bottom line is... if you don't like it, you can always run your own game.) That's what I usually do. I either suck it up and enjoy the game, or I just don't play at all, or I start my own game.

Ozmar the Proactive Player


----------



## Dykstrav (Nov 21, 2006)

Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> I guess I took it as the setting - I've played FR games for years, and have never met any of the 'established NPCs' in the games, and I've never played through any of those modules (although I do hear good things about many of them, and have ran one of the Bloodstone Pass series in my game). I have heard a lot of people with the same complaint you have, and most blame the setting, so I guess I just heard that automatically, sorry.  I still liken it to how the DM takes the setting and runs it for his games, as opposed to the setting itself.




S'all good.    The last two campaigns I actually played were FR. They were fun, largely because of what you're saying- we've never met an established NPC. Last game, we heard rumors about what Fzoul Chembryl was up to, and Szass Tam had trained a certain group of wizards, and that was it. It's tough to beat Undermountain for a classic 1E style dungeon crawl. And the Throne of Bloodstone is an epic adventure, in both the D&D and literary sense. Totally worth checking out.

But I know where you're coming from, seems like FR is notorious for the DMPC situation.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 21, 2006)

Slife,

No they don't since heal bots are expected by some groups.   It's the fighters, the rangers, the paladins, the wizards, the sorcerers and the rogues that people hate.


----------



## Tsillanabor (Nov 21, 2006)

So what about games with rotating DMs?


----------



## James Heard (Nov 21, 2006)

Tsillanabor said:
			
		

> So what about games with rotating DMs?



In games with rotating GMs I normally suggest they be episodic enough in the first place that one GM's plotlines don't mix much with the others'. Fortunately that means that there's no good reason to drag along every party member in every adventure, so when you swap out GMs you can have Billy the Thief stay at home and protect the valuables and thusly not worry everyone with his amazing ability to know just when to call for search checks, when to fall back into the back of the party before the ogres attack, etc. Just put the sheet away and give him XP as if he'd been there, just like everyone else does with their own characters when THEY are running. 

It might stretch someone's sense of absolute realism, but it's just the most practical way to do things. If the GM runs his own character he's got a DMPC and that upsets the players, if he lets another player run the character then there's always the danger that they turn him into a high hit point Nodwick and lower him into rooms to test for traps while the GM gets upset because "Billy would never do such a thing!"


----------



## Imagicka (Nov 23, 2006)

I wonder if we'll ever see and upgrade on this site to have the _multi-quote_ feature.  



			
				Goddess FallenAngel said:
			
		

> I have no issues with players having multiple PCs in the game world - just multiple PCs in the party at the same exact time. I'm getting from your post that you mean the same thing?



Where I can see it being conflicting, and hard to juggle.  Sometimes the situations in the game are such that the party is only effective when each player is playing two characters.  Usually, I make the stipulation that if they are going to run two characters, at the same time, that if they do anything 'fishy' in conjuction with those two characters... that being the GM, I have the power to veto their actions.  Though, I've never seen such problems.  I don't mind if someone does something, like act divisively against their other character.  After all, they are just roleplaying.  But usually, the players understand that we're only doing this because we need multiple characters because the party would suffer without them.



> Basically because I am still not sure why the PCs were with this character - since we never did anything. Anything that we fought our weapons and spells were useless against (only the 'charlie's' abilities could effect it). All the puzzles we encountered only the 'charlie' could solve. We got to the point of the PCs - in character - playing cards during battles while the DM rolled dice against himself. It didn't take him long to realize that we weren't lifting a finger. (DM: "PC1 - it's your Init." PC1: "I raise." PC2: "My init is next. I fold, too rich for my blood.")



That's the problem.  If anyone is going to pull a Gandalf, you never go half-buttocks (is that grandma friendly enough?) on it.  It should be more of a 'Charlie' situation where he sends the party out to do his dirty work.  All of this work should be beneath him, that's why he has the party for! 

I once, when I first started GMing, I was pulling a Gandalf.  Well, it was more of a Mary-Sue since the character was only a couple of levels higher than the party.  I wanted my character to be more of a _'in-the-background'_ kinda deal.  But I quickly soon realized that the party was relying on my... and I'm said to say... DMPC.  So, when I finally had my players meet the main villain, who had captured them all.  My DMPC told the players what they needed to know, just before they were interogated, and of course... since the DMPC was perceived as the 'leader'... the villain went to work on her... and in the process killed her.  No dice rolls, just matter-a-factly tortured her to death because he "didn't like the fact her teeth were so perfect".  



> Now, I'm not saying that it can't be done well - I believe that it can - but that particular experience was not done well.



No, I'm just glad you guys found another way to entertain yourself while the DM played him himself.


----------



## Imagicka (Nov 23, 2006)

James Heard said:
			
		

> In games with rotating GMs I normally suggest they be episodic enough in the first place that one GM's plotlines don't mix much with the others'. Fortunately that means that there's no good reason to drag along every party member in every adventure, so when you swap out GMs you can have Billy the Thief stay at home and protect the valuables and thusly not worry everyone with his amazing ability to know just when to call for search checks, when to fall back into the back of the party before the ogres attack, etc. Just put the sheet away and give him XP as if he'd been there, just like everyone else does with their own characters when THEY are running.
> 
> It might stretch someone's sense of absolute realism, but it's just the most practical way to do things. If the GM runs his own character he's got a DMPC and that upsets the players, if he lets another player run the character then there's always the danger that they turn him into a high hit point Nodwick and lower him into rooms to test for traps while the GM gets upset because "Billy would never do such a thing!"



For the most part whenever I've done rotating (round-robin) GMs... James' suggestion here is dead on.  The DMing styles of the varoius DMs is often different enough that you don't want to rely on any of the other DMs to set up any particular situation for you.  Unless it's a theme your working on.  _"Okay, all I want you to do is to get the players to DarkReach, and have them attacked by members of the Thieves Guild... oh, and make sure that they see lots of ravens on their way there."_ But never expect another GM to run your story for you, the way you want.

You want an example of how different DMs can be?  Goto a gaming con where they are all running the same adventure, and then talk to the various DMs (or players) and ask them what happened in the game.  I usually like to debrief the other DMs when we run a gaming advent... hang out with them afterwards with a cider and a plate of wings, and find out what they did with their group.  The differences are like day and night.  

I find that most players will want to also swap out their characters when your changing DMs as well.  Because more often than not, the players want to try something new... and as soon as one of them did it... they all did it.  Either for the novelty, or just to round out the group.  Which always begged the question from me... _If your going to bother to all change your characters, why are we bothering to play in the same world?  Why are we even playing the same game? _


----------



## Brimshack (Nov 23, 2006)

Sorry I missed this quote. I was getting a little frustrated with the discussion to be honest, and I just got back from Gen-Con So-Cal. So, I haven't been keeping up.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Trolling back up the thread a bit.
> 
> Why are you uncomfortable with the idea of servants?  It is certainly fitting with the setting.  Many, many fantasy heroes had mooks with them.  Conan had a pretty decent leadership score - granted, it kept getting knocked down 'cos he got all his followers and cohorts killed - but he still rarely trooped off on his own.
> 
> ...




Your second paragraph gets to the heart of my concern. Screwing someone over isn't necessarily what I have in mind, but I do think a cohort ought to be considered a real person with a real life of his own and real preferences. The notion that one person's loyalty is settled and can be taken for granted is what I find objectionable in the use of cohorts. I am well aware that there is a rule for them and that it costs a feat to get them. This doesn't change the fact that the practice is prone to abuse by the players. Your comparison of the cohort to a wand is precisely the heart of my concern. I'm not interested in any world in which a person of any kind has the functional significance of a wand.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> An NPC is fine.  I've run them and had DM's who've run them.  Groovy.  A DMPC is a bad thing IME.




Okay.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Look, one of the worst things you can do is bring in a Mary Sue character.  That's just bad for everyone.  A DMPC is a Mary Sue.  If he's not, then he's just an NPC.




No. A DMPC is not by definition a Mary Sue. That they tend to be is a noted fact. That regular NPCs can also become Mary Sues and Scene Stealers is also clearly true. The attempt to redefine a DMPC as a Mary Sue effectively turns an empirical question about how a DM actually manages the character in question into a matter of semantics. Just because a DM runs a PC and considers it his own doesn't mean he will run it as a scene stealer or create it as a Mary Sue. And just because you call somethign an NPC doesn't mean it won't be run as a scene stealer. Your concern is reasonable; your statement of that concern is not.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> An NPC cleric brought into a group that needs a healer is fine.  An NPC cleric that is 5 levels higher than the party, outfitted to the gills and has access to resources far beyond the party is a VERY BAD THING.




As you've read my posts, I think it should be clear that I too think that is a bad thign. I also think that is one of the advantages of a declared DMPC. In my circles, a declared DMPC is rolled up at the level of the party and under the same constraints as the regular PCs (plus a couple metagaming restrictions on long term problem solving). The only times I have ever been part of where the DMs character was consistently scene stealing and well above the power level of the party the character in question was technically considered an NPC. Often they were introduced without the initial intent to keep them in the party. They helped us with a situation, then they helped again, and again, and again... until the DM is effectively running a character with all the emotional attachements of a regular PC. As the NPC inthese situations was not initially rolled up as the rest of the party, it was not subject  to the same restrictions and hence ended up several levels above the party.

Now we can say that the characters in question (paragraph just above) is now effectively a DMPC, but that approach is misleading. It leads to the expectation that gradual continuum can be resolved with a simple categorical reference. It can't. The DMs screwed up in these instances not by making a single decision about the nature of the character, but in a series of distinctions in which the character gradually took center stage away from the PCs. This is a question about how the DM conducts himself, not a simple classificatory exercise of finding the right label for the right character. There was never a magic moment in which the character became a DMPC much less a moment ni which the DM decided to make the character a DMPC. What there was was a gradual evolution of the campaign into a situation in which a character technically classified as an NPC was in effect being run as a PC.


----------



## Brimshack (Nov 23, 2006)

Just taking stock of teh semantic angle for a moment. What are the variety of things we can use the distinction DMPC versus NPC to signal:

A) An over-powered and/or ideal character versus one that is par for the party.

B) A favored character versus one that receives treatement comparable to the rest of the party.

C) A character considered part of the party versus one who is subordinate and/or really treated as background for the party.

D) A character that is considered as belonging to the DM and to which he has attached goals comparable to those of the players versus one which he runs without such investment.

Are there others?

For my own part, I am thinking of this largely in terms of definition D. I'm doing this because I am fairly certain that when I roll up a character and introduce it into a party as my character, I am fairly certain all the usual concerns will immediately come to mind. Those who define a DMPC by definitions A, B, or C are unlikely to give me a pass simply because I haven't yet triggered the technical distinctions which they highlight.

And herein lies the problem I think with a lot of the semantic arguments being tossed around here. Unless you are prepared to say that a situation such as described in definition D is NOT a DMPC, then concerns such as those attached to A and B, are not really semantic questions; they are practical concerns about whether or not D actually leads to conduct such as described in A and B. Those are perfectly reasonable concerns, but they are concerns which play out in the actual details of a campaign. A DM may field a character in keeping with definition D and fail to produce the problems associated with A and B. Likewise, a DM may produce the problems associated with A and B without ever making a conscious choice (much less an openly aknoldged one) to play a DMPC. 

If avoiding the situation described in A and B the primary concern of a player, then I think it's reasonable to raise it in cases where a DM fields a character. I also think refusal to play under the circumstances described in D would be reasonable. What is not reasonable is the assertion that D is by definition equivalent to A and B or that it leads categorically to them.


----------

