Explain why DMPCs are bad to me.

[haakon1]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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'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!]

<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>

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.