Explain why DMPCs are bad to me.

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. :D

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.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
 
Last edited:

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.

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).


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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.

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

4) If the NPC is better at EVERYTHING than the PC's are: 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.
 

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.
 

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
 

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."
 

Remove ads

Top