Explain why DMPCs are bad to me.

[tzor]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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).