Explain why DMPCs are bad to me.

[GreatLemur]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 NPCs.

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]

<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]

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!]

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]

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