Explain why DMPCs are bad to me.

[Elf Witch]

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.




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.

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]

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]

Greetings...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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